Flores (2019), the Court’s case law had not visibilized the special situation of vulnerability of older persons. Poblete Vilches was the first case in which the Court addressed the violations under the optic of the prohibition of discrimination “owing to his condition as an older person.” 24 18. Since that case, the Court has slowly and increasingly developed more specific standards on the rights of older persons, some of those standards in accordance with the obligations that have been embodied in the IACPOP. For example, in Muelle Flores, when the Court evaluated the fourth element of a reasonable time to implement domestic decisions, it recognized the right to social security —harm caused by the legal situation of the person involved in the process— and held that “given that this case concerns the right of an older person with a hearing impairment to social security, a benefit associated with income substitution and nutrition […] a reinforced standard of expeditiousness was required.” 25 This holding of the Court may be understood as an expression of the obligations arising from the IACPOP with respect to the right to access to justice (Article 31). The Court, aware of the special impact caused by the non-payment of an old-age pension, specified that “the violation of one right directly affects another, a situation that is accentuated in the case of older persons,” which affects their “dignity” as persons. 26 19. Similar considerations were reiterated by the Court in ANCEJUB-SUNAT, the only difference being that that case established the link between the failure to pay the pension of social security and the violation of the right “to a dignified life.” 27 Thus, the Court’s case law crystallized what the IACPOP expresses in its Article 6 by indicating that “[a]ll older persons have the right to social security to protect them so that they can live in dignity.” 20. Recently, in Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities, in a section entitled “The right to judicial protection, especially regarding older persons in situations of vulnerability,” for the first time the Court expressly pointed out the differentiated focus in the access to justice of older persons, 28 stating that there exists for older persons the “right to a preferential treatment.” 21. In that case, the Court held that “the State’s obligation to guarantee compliance with judicial rulings takes on particular significance in cases […], in which a government institution has been sentenced to pay an amount of money to older adults.” 29 Thus, the Court considered the specific situation of an older person, and (b) the second, in which the Court addressed the case from a perspective of “age” as a factor that had a differentiated impact on older persons and their rights”. In the first stage are Yakye Axa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay (2005) and García Lucero et al. v. Chile (2013). While the cases in the second stage are Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile (2018) and Muelle Flores v. Peru (2019). 24 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 142. 25 Cf. Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 162. 26 Cf. Muelle Flores v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, paras. 204 to 207. In this regard, the IACPOP stresses that one of the principles that govern the Convention is “dignity” (Art. 3(c). 27 Cf. Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, paras. 184 to 191. 28 Specifically, the Court stated that: 148. […] it would emphasize that the alleged victims in the instant case are all of an advanced age […] many of them especially vulnerable. As regards these people, the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons, to which Chile is a party, recognizes certain applicable principles, including equality and non-discrimination (Article 3(d)), proper treatment and preferential care (Article 3(k)) and effective judicial protection (Article 3(n)).” 29 Cf. Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2021. Series C No. 443, para. 147. 5