Chimbo v. Ecuador,10 FEMAPOR v. Peru;11 as well as in my concurring opinions in the cases of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador,12 Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile,13 Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala,14 Buzos Miskitos v. Honduras,15 Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile,16 Manuela et al. v. El Salvador,17 Former Judicial Branch Workers v. Guatemala,18 Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador,19 and Pavez Pavez v. Chile.20 A. Incorrect analysis of the right to work as an autonomous right in this case. 3. The judgment reiterates the stance taken starting with the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru regarding the direct and autonomous justiciability of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (hereinafter ESCER) through Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the ACHR or the Convention). There is no need to remake the arguments demonstrating the lack of legal basis for this theory in the framework of the Inter-American Court’s contentious jurisdiction, and I would simply point to the opinions referenced in the above paragraph.21 What I would like to express at this time is the Court’s blunder in analyzing the case pursuant to Article 26 and not Article 23 of the Convention, which regulates the right to access to public service under conditions of equality. 4. In its judgment, the Court found a violation of the right to equality before the law and the States obligation to respect rights without discrimination on finding it proven that "the reason Mr. Guevara was not selected for the position of Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423. Concurring and partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 10 Case of the national Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment dated February 1, 2022. Series C No. 448. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 11 Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 12 Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 13 Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 14 Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al) v. Honduras. Judgment of August 31, 2021. Series C No. 432. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 15 Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 16 Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 17 Case of Former Judicial Branch Workers v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 18 Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 19 Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment dated February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 20 It ignores the scope of Article 26 as determined based on the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Laws Treaties (literal, systematic, and teleological interpretation); it changes the nature of the obligation of progressiveness set forth with total clarity in Article 26; it ignores the will of the States as provided for under Article 19 of the Protocol of San Salvador; and it undermines the legitimacy of the Court regionally, to mention only a few arguments. 21 2