enforcement by the state under Articles 1.1, 2, and 26 of the Convention, as well as the contents of the right concerned, must be taken into consideration. 48. In that regard, the Commission understands that Article 26 of the American Convention imposes various obligations upon states that are not confined to prohibiting regressiveness, which is a correlate to the obligation of progressiveness, but it cannot be construed as the only obligation subject to justice in the inter-American system under this norm. Thus, the Commission asserts that, bearing in mind the interpretive framework of Article 29 of the American Convention, Article 26 viewed in the light of Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, leads to, at least, the following immediate and enforceable obligations: i) general obligations of respect and guarantee, ii) application of the principle of non-discrimination to economic, social, and cultural rights, iii) obligations to take steps toward or adopt measures for achieving the enjoyment of the rights incorporated into said article; and iv) offering suitable and effective remedies for their protection. The methodologies or sources of analysis that turn out to be relevant for each one of these obligations must be established in accordance with the circumstances specific to each case. 49. In connection with the enforceable and immediate components of the obligation to take steps or adopt measures, the ESCR Committee has indicated, for example, that the adoption of measures, by itself, is not limited to or conditioned by other considerations; to that end, although achieving the effective enforcement of rights may be gradual, the adoption of measures or ordinances for such purposes must be deliberate, concrete, and targeted as clearly as possible at their enforcement. The state, in addition, has basic obligations that must meet the basic levels of such rights, which are not subject to progressive development but rather must be immediate in nature. 61 50. In the case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela and when applying the relevant contents of the right to work, the Inter-American Court established the violation of the right to work in connection with the principle of equality and non-discrimination, after ruling that three civil servants had been removed from their posts in a discriminatory fashion. 62 51. The Commission considers that, although in the present case the alleged victim was not dismissed, but rather had to stop being a religious education teacher and take up a post that was different from what she had been doing for more than 20 years, the above-mentioned precedent is relevant to the extent that it dealt with a presumably discriminatory action that had an impact on her work, which in this case involved performing the public service of teaching or being a teacher in a school. Thus, in addition to the principle of equality and non-discrimination and the right to privacy and autonomy, the Commission also deems it is relevant to examine the present case in the light of Articles 23.1(c) and 26 of the Convention. 3. protection Considerations on the right to benefit from reasoned decisions and the right to judicial 52. Regarding the right to judicial protection, the Court has pointed out that Article 25.1 of the Convention establishes, in ample terms, the obligation of states to provide to all persons subject to their jurisdiction an effective legal remedy against acts violating their fundamental rights. 63 In addition, the Court has established that, for the state to comply with the provision in Article 25 of the Convention, it is not enough for remedies to exist formally, but rather that they be effective under its terms, in other words, that they yield results or responses to the violations of rights recognized either by the Convention, the Constitution, or the law. The above implies that the redress must be adequate to combat the violation and that its enforcement by the competent authority must be effective. Likewise, an effective remedy requires that the review of a judicial 61 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, General Comment 3: The nature of states parties obligations (paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Covenant), 1990. In that respect, see: IACHR. Report on poverty and human rights in the Americas OEA/Ser.L/V/II.164 Doc. 147 (September 7, 2017), paras. 236 and 237. 62 I/A Court H.R. Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348. Paras. 221 and 222. 63 I/A Court H.R. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311. Para. 108.