14 “derived from 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;”81 e) in relation to the first, “the jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of th[e] Convention that are submitted to it;” 82 f) consequently, when such a case is submitted to the Court, those States that have recognized its contentious jurisdiction can only be required to ensure due respect for the civil and political rights that it “recognizes” and “guarantees;”83 g) also, the States may be eventually required to adopt, “in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms;”84 h) by contrast, in relation to the rights “derived from the economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of the American States, as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires,” only States Parties to the Convention could be required to adopt “by legislation or other appropriate means,” “measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively […]the full realization of the rights,” and this is “subject to available resources;” i) as to the supplementary means of interpretation, these confirm that the States Parties to the Convention did not wish to include economic, social and cultural rights within the established system of protection; j) indeed, during the Specialized Inter-American Conference on Human Rights, during which the final text of the Convention was adopted, Colombia proposed the definition of the economic, social and cultural rights to be protected by the mechanism provided therein, while Mexico argued that none of those rights should be included. Consequently, “(f)ollowing discussions during which some of the preceding positions were repeated without reaching a consensus, and during which it was never proposed to include economic, social and cultural rights in the system of protection contemplated for civil and political rights, a chapter was drafted with two articles.”85 The first of these articles, proposed by Brazil as a formula for conciliation, was included by virtue of the corresponding vote, in the final text of the Convention, as Article 26. 81 Footnote 6. 82 Footnote 12. . 83 Footnote 25. 84 Footnote 67. Concurring Opinion of Judge Alberto Pérez, Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, Judgment of September 1, 2015, (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs). 85