scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the” OAS; in other words, rights that can be understood or inferred from 56 the latter’s provisions; iii. ergo, it unambiguously does not recognize the rights referred to and does not ensure their exercise, as the Convention does [in the case of the civil and political rights]; iv. it does not make such rights effective or enforceable, because if it had wished to do so, it would have stated this directly and without any ambiguity; in other words, contrary to the Court’s case law, there is no “reference with a sufficient degree of specificity to the right to just and satisfactory working conditions to derive their existence and implicit recognition in the OAS Charter.”57 v. to the contrary, it establishes an obligation for action and not for results, consisting in the States Parties to the Convention undertaking “to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, […] the full realization of the rights” mentioned, a mandate that the judgment does not observe; and vi. it indicates that the obligation of conduct that it establishes must be complied with “by legislation or other appropriate means and subject to available resources,” which not only reinforces the lack of effectiveness of such rights, but conditions the possibility of complying with this obligation to the existence of the resources that the pertinent State has available for this and to the cooperation of other States. “Inferir: Deducir algo o sacarlo como conclusión de otra cosa”, Idem. Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 155. 56 57