International courts must therefore exercise their powers in the framework set by the applicable treaties. Such legal instruments are the foundation for the court and set the boundaries for its work. From the democratic standpoint, this is consistent with due respect for the domestic deliberative processes by which a country decides to ratify a treaty, and with the type of interpretation produced by international courts. Such hermeneutic exercise revolves around the provisions of international law and are not based on a constitution. 3. Therefore, and in view of the fact that the Court in this case found violation of the right to job stability as part of the right to work, based on the provisions of Convention Article 26, it is worth asking whether the Count in fact has the power to proceed in such a way. 4. The law of treaties tells us that it does not. Article 1(1) of the Convention is clear, stating that the States Parties “undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination...” The articles on the jurisdiction and functions of the Court are also crystal-clear in stating that the Court is subject to the provisions of the American Convention. Specifically, Article 62(3) says, “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it [...]” and, along the same lines, Article 63(1) says, “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated.” 10 5. Chapter III of the Convention, “Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” consists of a single paragraph, Article 26, entitled “Progressive Development.” Under the terms of this article, as the title suggests, “[t]he States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires.” 11. 6. Notwithstanding the following discussion, a reading of this article would suggest that, unlike the case of the civil and political rights specified and developed in Chapter II of the Convention, this text sets an obligation of means for the States Parties, that is, to adopt the actions, measures or public policies necessary to achieve “progressively” the full realization of the rights provided in this article. 7. Indeed, under Article 76(1) and 77(1) of the Convention, the States Parties agreed on mechanisms to modify the terms of the Convention by means of either amendment or an additional protocol. It was under this latter article that the “Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” was adopted in 1988, for the purpose of progressively drawing other rights and freedoms into the protection system of the Convention. I will discuss this point below. 10 11 Emphasis added. Emphasis added.