that it is not pertinent to carry out an analysis on the impact on ESCR (specifically the right to work) specified by the representatives of the aforementioned alleged victims, and even more so when the Commission declared it inadmissible in the Admissibility Report, therefore said claim must be dismissed. 45. Mr. Valenzuela Cerna’s representatives referred to the Court’s case law, citing in particular the case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, in which it is indicated that the Court has competence to assess whether there was a violation of Article 26 in the terms provided by Articles 62 and 63 of the Convention. Therefore, they requested the rejection of this objection. 46. The Commission reiterated that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report. Furthermore, it considered that the State's argument does not constitute an objection of lack of material jurisdiction. Therefore, it requested that the objection be dismissed. C.2 Considerations of the Court 47. In consideration of the State's allegations, this Court reaffirms its competence to hear and resolve controversies related to Article 26 of the American Convention as an integral part of the rights listed in its text, with respect to which Article 1(1) confers obligations of respect and guarantee. 27 However, in this case, none of the representatives of Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Rodríguez Ricse presented specific allegations related to the violation of Article 26 of the American Convention. The alleged victims did not request, either in the petition or in the conclusion of their motions and pleadings briefs, the violation of said article. 48. Consequently, the Court considers the aforementioned preliminary objection presented by the State inadmissible. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 49. As indicated (supra para. 18), the Court will analyze the State's allegations as preliminary considerations. A. Factual Framework A.1 On the alleged improper inclusion in the pleadings and motions brief of allegations regarding the alleged impact on rights not included in the Admissibility Report No. 19/15, regarding Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse A.1(1) Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 50. The State declared that in Admissibility Report No. 19/15, the Commission declared the petitions inadmissible, in relation to Articles 5, 11, and 26 (specifically in relation to labor rights, understood as the right to work) of the Convention and that in its Merits Report No. 159/18, it did not consider said rights as having been violated. Despite this, the defense of Mr. Valenzuela Cerna "made a series of general statements by means of which they seek to discuss the impairment of the aforementioned rights," as the representation for Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse 27 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 22. 14