15 representatives of labor unions and representatives of labor associations. Thus, while association in a labor union for the defense of such interests may be invoked via the Protocol of San Salvador (8(1)(a), if it has not been made justiciable via Article 26 of the American Convention, the right to “associate of labor for the defense of their interests” would have risked leaving individuals who also merit protection in this regard in labor contexts without international protection.71 45. On this point, I consider that the fact that the Inter-American Court ruled on the justiciability of rights that were not established in Article 19(6) of the Protocol of San Salvador, by means of Article 26 of the American Convention, is especially relevant. First, because, as explained, not all social rights, or all their aspects, were contemplated in the Protocol of San Salvador when it was drafted. Second, because it avoids making distinctions of degrees regarding who or what may or may not be protected under this right, owing to the restriction made in Article 19(6) of the Protocol of San Salvador (in that case, only labor or trade unions and their representatives). 46. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to provide greater clarity to the violation of the right to freedom of association, I consider that the Inter-American Court could have used Article 29(b) and (d) of the American Convention, as norms of interpretation in relation to Article 26 of the American Convention and Article 45(c) of the OAS Charter; and not only referred to Article 16 of the Pact of San José. This is because there is a risk that the content of the right to freedom of association for the promotion and defense of the interests of workers (stricto sensu) is diluted in the content of the right to associate (lato sensu).72 IV. CONCLUSIONS 47. The Inter-American Court has ruled on the content of Article 26 of the American Convention in very few cases. The Inter-American Commission has directly alleged that it had been violated on only two occasions,73 and the representatives of the victims only six times. 74 Thus, the great significance of this judgment stems from the fact that the Inter-American Court, Although, the Inter-American Court examined the violation of Article 16 of the American Convention in the case of Kawas Fernández, this referred to work as a human rights defender (of the environment; in other words, for being a member of and taking part freely in organizations, associations, or non-governmental groups working in the area of monitoring, denouncing and promoting human rights, and not for being a member of a labor union. Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 146. 71 The situation of Mr. Lagos del Campo is a specific type of labor relationship (for the defense and promotion of workers’ interests). 72 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 142. In the Case of Yakye Axa v. Paraguay (2005), the Inter-American Commission made a connection between Article 26 of the American Convention and the violation of Article 4. In this regard it indicated that: “ 157. […] (e) the situation of risk or vulnerability of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community has been created by State negligence, a fact that has not been challenged; quite the contrary, the State itself declared a “state of emergency in the Community” in 1999. This negligence took place in a context in which Paraguay had the obligation to ensure the conditions required to achieve a decent life, an obligation that was underlined by the commitment reflected in Article 26 of the American Convention to take appropriate steps for complete realization of social rights. Nevertheless, by omission in its public health policies, the State diminished the enjoyment of basic public health, nutritional and housing conditions by the members of the Yakye Axa Community […].” Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 157. 73 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 253; Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 115.B (in this case the representatives argued that the right to education was a right protected by Article 26 of the American Convention in the context of the violation of Article 19 of the American Convention); Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 134; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 4; Case of the Kichwa Indigenous Community of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 137 to 139 and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 159. 74