Protocol may give rise, through participation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and, when applicable, of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, to application of the system of individual petitions governed by Article 44 through 51 and 61 through 69 of the American Convention on Human Rights.” 94. This means that only in the event of a violation of the rights relating to trade unions and to education are the pertinent cases justiciable before the Court. To the contrary, with regard to the violation of the other rights, which include the other aspects of the right to work, only the system of reports established in Article 19 of the Protocol is in order. 95. Consequently, the Protocol is an amendment to the Convention. This is revealed by its very text because it is considered a protocol, a mechanism expressly established in the Convention.102 Also, its Preamble places on record that it is adopted considering that the Convention establishes that possibility.103 Thus, it is an “additional protocol” to the Convention signed “for the purpose of gradually incorporating other rights and freedoms into the protective system thereof,” which, therefore, did not include them. 96. Consequently, this instrument, by establishing in its Article 19 the competence of the Court to examine possible violations of the rights concerning trade unions and education is not limiting the Court; rather, to the contrary, it is expanding its competence. If the Protocol did not exist, the Court could not even examine the possible violation of those rights. 97. All the foregoing is, consequently, evident proof that, for the States Parties to the Protocol, the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention cannot be interpreted to mean that it establishes or recognizes economic, social and cultural rights or that it authorizes cases in which they are violated to be submitted to the consideration of the Court. Let me repeat that, if it had established this, obviously there would have been no need for the Protocol. It was for that reason that it was necessary to adopt it. Its signature cannot be explained in any other way. 98. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the Protocol is, consequently, the clear demonstration that the provisions of Article 26 do not establish any human right. VI. CONCLUSIONS effectively in a democratic and pluralistic society and achieve a decent existence and should foster understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups and promote activities for the maintenance of peace. 3. The States Parties to this Protocol recognize that in order to achieve the full exercise of the right to education: a. Primary education should be compulsory and accessible to all without cost; b. Secondary education in its different forms, including technical and vocational secondary education, should be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular, by the progressive introduction of free education; c. Higher education should be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of individual capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular, by the progressive introduction of free education; d. Basic education should be encouraged or intensified as far as possible for those persons who have not received or completed the whole cycle of primary instruction; e. Programs of special education should be established for the handicapped, so as to provide special instruction and training to persons with physical disabilities or mental deficiencies. 4. In conformity with the domestic legislation of the States Parties, parents should have the right to select the type of education to be given to their children, provided that it conforms to the principles set forth above. 5. Nothing in this Protocol shall be interpreted as a restriction of the freedom of individuals and entities to establish and direct educational institutions in accordance with the domestic legislation of the States Parties.” 102 Supra, footnote 25. 103 Supra, para. 84.