12 35. In the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, the Court for the first time established and consolidated a specific and autonomous violation of Article 26 of the American Convention,23 set forth in Chapter III, and entitled Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Thus, the Court defined more clearly24 its jurisdiction to hear and settle disputes related to Article 26 of the American Convention, as an integral part of the rights contained therein, in respect of which Article 1(1) establishes the States’ general obligations to respect and guarantee rights.25 Based on that judgment, the Court established its jurisdiction to examine autonomous violations of Article 26 of the Convention, considering that the rights derived from this article may be directly justiciable through the mechanism of individual petitions before the inter-American system. This jurisprudential stance has been ratified in various subsequent decisions adopted by this Court. 26 In this sense, this Court has already established its jurisdiction to examine the merits of alleged violations of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights derived from Article 26 of the Convention. 36. In the particular case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, given the importance of this question for the legal certainty of the inter-American system, the Court considered the scope of its jurisdiction in relation to Article 26 of the American Convention based on a literal, systematic, teleological and evolutive interpretation thereof. Drawing on those interpretative methods, on an analysis of the preparatory works of the Convention and on the juridical nature of the Protocol of San Salvador, the Court concluded that “Article 26 of the Convention protects the rights derived from the economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural standards set forth in the OAS Charter. The scope of such rights should be understood in relation to the other articles of the American Convention and they are therefore subject to the general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention and may be supervised by this Court in the terms of Articles 62 and 63 of this instrument. This conclusion is based not only on formal issues, but results from the interdependence and indivisibility of civil and political rights and economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, as well as their compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is the protection of the fundamental rights of human beings. In each specific case requiring an analysis of ESCER, it will be necessary to determine if a human right protected by Article 26 of the American Convention is explicitly or implicitly derived from the OAS Charter, as well as the scope of that protection.”27 37. The Court refers to the criteria adopted in the aforementioned cases and reiterates its constant case law regarding its jurisdiction to examine the alleged violation of the right to social security contained in Article 26 of the Convention. Based on the foregoing, the Court dismisses the preliminary 23 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, paras. 142 and 145. Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru, supra, paras. 16, 17 and 100, and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 154. 25 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, paras. 142 and 154. The paragraph stated that “[i]n [this] sense, the Court [held] that the broad terms in which the American Convention is drafted indicate that the Court exercises full jurisdiction over all its articles and provisions. Also, it is pertinent to note that although Article 26 is found in Chapter III of the Convention, (entitled ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’), it also appears in Part I of that instrument, entitled ‘State Obligations and Rights Protected’ and, therefore, is subject to the general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 indicated in Chapter I (entitled ‘General Obligations’), and in Articles 3 to 25 contained in Chapter II (entitled ‘Civil and Political Rights’)”. Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru, supra, para. 100, and UN, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 13: The right to education (Article 13 of the Covenant), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1999/10, December 8, 1999, para. 50. 26 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 75 to 97; Environment and human rights (State obligations in relation to the environment in the context of the protection and guarantee of the rights to life and personal integrity- interpretation and scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017. Series A No. 23, para. 57; Case of Dismissed Employees of PetroPerú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 192; Case of San Miguel Sosa and other v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 8 February 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 220; Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 100, and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, paras. 142 and 145. 24 27 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 75 to 97.