paradigmatic source 23 the Vienna Declaration and Action Program of 1993. 24 To affirm them as such signifies that there exist, among the human rights, relationships of mutual support, sometimes expressed in the manner of linkage arguments, 25 in which an attempt is made to justify the cases of the simultaneous effect of rights for conceptual, normative, epistemical or determinative reasons. 26 These relationships of mutual support qualify and reinforce the systemical nature of the Convention and have been examined by the Court in various of its judgments. 27 In view of the interdependent nature of human rights, it is not surprising that the phenomenon of overlapping norms sometimes occurs. Therefore, the concomitant effect of the rights and the invocation to the global dimension of the Convention need not be viewed as a defect of the system, a conceptual confusion or an interpretive artifice. On the contrary, it is one of the most widespread, distinctive and valuable characteristics of the systems of human rights. 12. As it is in complete agreement with the aforementioned four hermeneutical parameters, the judgment in Benites Cabrera et al. v. Peru is an undeniable advance from the point of view of the global and integral protection of human rights. A first aspect, as mentioned, was the recognition, on the basis of Article 26 of the Convention, of international responsibility for the violation of the right to work with respect to the component of work stability. A second fundamental aspect that furthers this global and integral understanding of events that result in infringements of the rights of the Convention was the declaration of international responsibility for violating Article 23(1)(c). We will now reconstruct the manner in which this advance was produced in relation to the Court’s precedents that share the same context of facts. II.2. The integrality of human rights and the transcendental step in Benites Cabrera: the infringement of the right to work stability. 13. This case inserts itself into the context of the dismissal of 1,117 Peruvian congressional employees in December 1992 after the rupture of the democraticconstitutional order of April 5, 1992 that was described by the Court in Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, which referred to 257 dismissed employees, and Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, concerning three victims. In those judgments, the Court declared proved a series of facts that preceded the dismissal of those congressional employees, as well as the adoption of laws and administrative resolutions designed to repair the irregular dismissals during the reorganization of public bodies implemented during the 1990s. 28 However, this understanding was already verifiable; for example, in the resolution of the UN General Assembly that decided to draft one binding convention that contemplated all the rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (cf. Res. 421(V) of 1950). Although this decision was changed in the "separation resolution" (Res. 543(VI)/1951-1952), which was responsible for the division into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, that resolution reaffirmed the same principles. 24 Part I, para. 5: “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and are interrelated.” This phrase also appears in the Declaration of Montreal, in the Yogyakarta Principles and in the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 25 See James W. Nickel, “Rethinking Indivisibility: Towards a Theory of Supporting Relations between Human Rights,” 30(4) Human Rights Quarterly, 2008, pp. 984–1001; Pablo Gilabert, “The Importance of Linkage Arguments for the Theory and Practice of Human Rights: A Response to James Nickel,” 32(2) Human Rights Quarterly, 2010, pp. 425–438. 26 Gilabert, op. cit., pp. 427-428. 27 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 172. Similarly: Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 131 and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 141. 28 Cf. Case of Benites Cabrera et al. v. Peru, op. cit., para. 65. 23 5