CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE RICARDO C. PÉREZ MANRIQUE CASE OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF MARITIME AND PORT WORKERS (FEMAPOR) V. PERU JUDGMENT OF FEBRUARY 1, 2022 (Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations) I. INTRODUCTION 1. This judgment declares the violation of Articles 8(1), 21, 25(1), 25(2)(c) and 26, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”). The case concerns the infringement of the right to judicial protection due to the failure to comply with the February 12, 1992 decision on a writ of amparo of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Peru, which determined the method of calculating the additional pay increase for 4,047 former maritime, port and river workers. Since 2010, 2,317 of the beneficiaries of the original decision have continued to present a claim before the judiciary because they believe that the payment of their social benefits was incorrectly calculated. The Court also held that the passage of 25 years to fully execute the Supreme Court’s decision was not a reasonable period. 2. I hereby concur with the judgment and present this opinion in order to examine more in depth the importance of the right to a salary as an economic, social, cultural and environmental right (ESCER) and, at the same time, to emphasize some aspects related to the generational vulnerability of victims who are more than 70 years of age. 3. My opinion is structured as follows: (i) the direct justiciability of ESCER, (ii) the importance of wages as a component of the right to work, and (iii) the vulnerability of older persons. II. DIRECT JUSTICIABILITY OF ESCER 4. The justiciability of ESCER has been debated, both doctrinally and by the Court, and has resulted in at least three positions, among other issues that I mentioned in my concurring opinion in National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (Ancejub-Sunat) v. Peru of November 21, 2019. 1 5. The first position proposes that individual violations of ESCER lack a “direct justiciability.” This is not to say that they are not justiciable, but rather that they are so “indirectly.” In other words, in order to analyze a violation of those rights, the Court can only do so in relation to the civil and political rights expressly recognized in Articles 3 to 25 of the Convention, with the exception that the infringement of two of the ESCER rights may be declared directly: the right to education and the right to organize. Both those rights are expressly recognized as “justiciable” by Article 19(6) of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human 1 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. 1