be performed with “fair wages, employment opportunities, and acceptable working conditions for all”. These articles also establish the right of workers to “associate themse lv es f r eely f o r the defense and promotion of their interests.” They also require the State to “ha rm oniz e the social legislation” for the protection of such rights. In its Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, the Court indicated that: […] The Member States […] have signaled their agreement that the Declaration contains and defines the fundamental human rights referred to in the Charter. Thus, the Charte r of the Organization cannot be interpreted and applied, as far as human rights are concerned, without relating its norms, consistent with the practice of the organs of the OAS, to the corresponding provisions of the Declaration. 129. In this regard, Article XIV of the American Declaration establishes that “[e]v er y p e rs on has the right to work, under proper conditions, and to follow his vocation f r e ely [...].” T his provision is relevant in defining the scope of Article 26, given that “the American Declara t io n constitutes, where applicable and in relation to the OAS Charter, a s o ur c e o f inte rna tional obligations.” Furthermore, Article 29(d) of the American Convention expressly establishes that “[n]o provision of this Convention may be interpreted as: [...] d) ex clud ing o r lim iting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other inte r na tiona l acts of the same nature have.” 18. The Court considers that the wording of the judgment is absolutely clear inasmuch as it reiterates its constant case-law in which the Court has sustained it is competent to hear all issues related to article 26 of the American Convention as an integral part of the rights established therein, specif ically labor rights. Theref ore, the Court dismisses the State’s request. B. State’s request for interpretation regarding the issues concerning the rights developed in the judgment that are not based on treaties subject to ratification by States B.1 Arguments of the State and of the Commission 19. The State requested the Court to justif y the arguments and reasons why “it takes into consideration the conclusions drawn by […] bodies” like the “Committee on Freedom of Association and […] the Committee of Experts” of the International Labour Organization. It indicated that “there is a question regarding the rights developed in the judgment based on issues not subject to treaties ratif ied by States and the f act that the Court takes into account conclusions drawn by oversight bodies” inasmuch “they do not set a precedent or are binding on States”. 20. The Commission pointed out that “in accordance with a systematic, teleological and evolving interpretation, the Court ‘has drawn on the international and national corpus iuris on the matter to give specif ic content to the scope of the rights protected by the Convention, in order to determine the scope of the specif ic obligations of each right’” and that “the decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the ILO Committee of Experts, ref erred to by the State, are part of this international corpus iuris”. Theref ore, it considered that “the request f or interpretation submitted by the State should be declared inadmissible.” B.2 Considerations of the Court 21. In relation to the request f or interpretation submitted by the State, the Court verif ies that in the State’s answering brief as well as in the f inal written arguments, the State itself ref erred to the interpretation made by the Committee on Freedom of Association to determine the scope of the right to strike in light of the Convention. Theref ore, the Court notes it is contradictory to request the Court to justif y the reasons 5