53. Having established that, it must then be determined whether the State breached the obligation in terms of “progressively achieving” the full realization of that right or the general obligations to respect and ensure it. On this second level of analysis, it is necessary to consider the nature and scope of the obligations enforceable upon the State under Articles 1(1), 2, and 26 of the Convention, as well as the content of the right concerned, as is done hereinbelow. 54. Insofar as it is the provision that sets out the parameters of the general rules of interpretation of the American Convention, Article 29 of the Convention is important for establishing the criteria by which to derive specific rights from the OAS Charter, as well as to determine their content and the obligations of States in relation thereto. Thus, according to that Article, no provision of the Convention shall be interpreted as restricting or suppressing rights recognized by the domestic laws of the States or by any other treaty to which one of said States is a party, or as excluding the effects that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have. The provision thus recognizes the pro persona principle in the Inter-American system and offers a key tool for effective protection of all human rights recognized both in the constitutions of the states parties, and in the Inter-American and universal human rights instruments that they have ratified. 55. Based on a holistic interpretation, which Article 26 requires in light of the provisions contained in article 29, the Commission considers it relevant to refer to the obligations that emerge from Article 26 of the American convention and may be the subject of pronouncements on the part of the organs of the interAmerican system in the framework of contentious cases. In that regard, bearing in mind that the State is not a party to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), in this case the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is relevant,75 as it contains, at Article 2.1, 76 provisions similar to those of Article 26 of the American Convention. The Commission has previously relied on the observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the concept of progressive realization and the scope of obligations arising therefrom. 77 Thus, it underscores that this concept does not render the State's obligations insignificant; on the contrary, it must be interpreted in the light of the overall objective of the treaty with a view to the full realization of the rights involved.78 56. In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that Article 26 of the American Convention imposes various obligations on States that go beyond a prohibition on regressiveness, which is a correlate of the obligation of progressive realization and cannot be regarded as the only justiciable obligation in the interAmerican system under that provision. Thus, bearing in mind the interpretative framework provided by Article 29 of the American Convention, viewed from the perspective of Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument, Article 26 gives rise, at a minimum, to the following immediate and enforceable obligations: (i) general obligations to respect and ensure rights; (ii) application of the principle of nondiscrimination to economic, social, and cultural rights; (iii) obligations to take steps or adopt measures to achieve the realization of the rights contained in that article; and (iv) to offer suitable and effective remedies for their protection. The appropriate methodologies or sources of analysis for each of those obligations will have to be determined according to the particular circumstances of each case. 57. As regards the enforceable and immediate nature of the obligation to take steps or adopt measures, the CESCR has indicated, for example, that the adoption of measures in itself, is not qualified or limited by other considerations; therefore, while the full realization of rights may be achieved progressively, steps towards that goal should be deliberate, concrete and targeted as clearly as possible towards meeting 75. The Brazilian State acceded to the treaty on January 24, 1992. 76. According to that provision, “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures." 77. IACHR, Report No. 38/09, Case 12.670, Admissibility and Merits, National Association of Ex-Employees of the Peruvian Social Security Institute et al., Peru, March 27, 2009. par. 136. 78. United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 3: The nature of States parties' obligations (art. 2, para. 1, of the Covenant), adopted at the Fifth Session, 1990, E/1991/23. 12