particular, the Court has noted that Article 45(b) of the OAS Charter establishes that “b) work is a right and a social duty, it gives dignity to the one who performs it and it should be performed under conditions, including a system of fair wages, that ensure life, health and a decent standard of living for the worker and his family, both during his working years and in his old age, or when any circumstance deprives him of the possibility of working.” Thus, the Court has considered that there is a reference with a sufficient degree of specificity to the right to job security to derive its existence and implicit recognition in the OAS Charter. Based on the foregoing, this Court has held that the right to job stability is a right protected by Article 26 of the Convention. 220 154. Regarding the content and scope of this right, the Court recalls that Article XIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man provides that “[e]very person has the right to work, under proper conditions, and to follow his vocation freely [… ]”. Similarly, Article 6 of the Protocol of San Salvador establishes that “[e]very Everyone has the right to work, which includes the opportunity to secure the means for living a dignified and decent existence by performing a freely elected or accepted lawful activity.” At the universal level, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that “[e]veryone has the right to work,… to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.” For its part, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights establishes that “[t]he States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.” 221 155. The Court has specified that job stability does not consist of an unrestricted permanence in the job, but of respecting this right, among other measures, granting protection to the worker so that, in the event of dismissal or arbitrary dismissal, it is carried out under justified causes, which implies that the employer provides sufficient reasons for it with due guarantees, and against which the worker can appeal said decision before the domestic authorities, who must verify that the causes imputed are not arbitrary or contrary to law. 222 Similarly, the Court considers that the right to job stability protects the worker from being deprived of his job due to direct or indirect interference by the judiciary, since this affects the freedom of people to earn a living through the work they choose, and their right to remain in employment, as long as there are no justified causes for their termination. 156. In this regard, the Court notes that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its General Comment No. 18 on the right to work, affirmed the obligation of States “to assure individuals their right to freely chosen or accepted work, including the right not to be deprived of work unfairly”. 223 Furthermore, said Committee established that the States have the obligation to respect this right, which implies that they “refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of that right”. 224 following basic goals: […] g) Fair wages, employment opportunities, and acceptable working conditions for all”. Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, par. 143, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, par. 105. 220 221 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 7(b). 222 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, par. 150, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, par. 107. Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 18. The right to work (Art. 6). Approved on November 24, 2005, par. 4. 223 224 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 18, supra, par. 22. 51