-9system of “control of compliance with the obligations.” The part entitled “Articles revised by the Style Committee,” includes the text of Articles 26 and 27 that were submitted to a vote:14 Chapter III ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS Article 26. Progressive Development The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means and in keeping with the resources available, the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, Article 27. Control of Compliance with Obligations The States Parties shall transmit to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights a copy of the reports and studies that they submit every year to the Executive Committees of the InterAmerican Economic and Social Council and of the Inter-American Council for Education, Science and Culture, respectively, so that the Commission may verify compliance with the preceding obligations, which provide the essential foundation for the exercise of the other rights established in this Convention. 21. In the second plenary session,15 the following decision was taken: Article 26 is adopted without any change, and article 27 is eliminated. The numbering of the following articles is amended accordingly. Thus, at no time was it proposed to include the economic, social and cultural rights under the system of protection established by the Convention, which remained limited to the civil and political rights recognized therein. V. CONCLUSIONS 22. In conclusion, neither the specific recognition of the economic, social and cultural rights nor their inclusion in the system of protection established by the Convention can be inferred from Article 26 of the American Convention. The recognition of other rights and their inclusion in the system of protection does not correspond to the Court, but rather to the Member States by means of amendments (Article 76) or protocols (Article 77) that apply Article 31. 23. This is not a case in which the Court can make a legitimate progressive interpretation in which it defines or varies the way in which a right or freedom recognized by the Convention should be understood. The compétence de la compétence does not allow the Court to modify its own competence, but rather to decide in each specific case, and pursuant to the pertinent norms, whether or not it has competence in that case. 24. Consequently, it is not incumbent on the Court to consider, and eventually declare, a violation of the right to health. 14 Proceedings of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, November 7 to 22, 1969, OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, p. 318. 15 Proceedings of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, November 7 to 22, 1969, OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, p. 448.