from this that the Court has jurisdiction to declare a violation of the right to work, as already explained. 21. In the judgment, state responsibility was declared based on the consideration that during the selection process in which Mr. Guevara Díaz participated, he was treated differently to his detriment based on his intellectual disability, without an objective and reasonable justification. This violated his rights to equal protection before the law and to work, recognized in articles 24 and 26 of the ACHR, read in conjunction with the obligations to respect and guarantee. I agree with the considerations expressed in the judgment, with the exception of those referring to the direct violation of the right to work based on Article 26, as indicated above. 22. It should be borne in mind that paragraphs 78, 79, and 82 of the judgment indicate that it was proven that Mr. Guevara was not selected for the position of Miscellaneous Worker 1 due to his status as a person with an intellectual disability, without the state adequately justifying its decision. This without question violates the state’s duty to prohibit all manner of discrimination against persons belonging to particularly vulnerable groups. But that same fact is classified as a violation of Mr. Guevara’s right to work, without specifying any other fact that by itself violates the right that is said to be protected by Article 26 of the Convention. It is not in dispute that the state’s conduct fails to comply with the duty of non-discrimination and the duty to adopt measures to achieve material equality for persons who belong to especially vulnerable groups, such as persons with disabilities, but the judgment does not explain the way in which that conduct produced an autonomous violation of the victim's right to work. In short, what the sentence does is establish the violation of the right to work based on the same fact and grounds that were used to establish the violation of the right to equal protection and non-discrimination, and we thus find ourselves within the same scope of protection. Of course, a fact can give rise to the violation of one or more rights of the Convention, but for it to be possible to declare such violations, the rights must be justiciable before the Court. 23. This approach impacts the legal certainty that an international court must guarantee and the legitimacy of its decisions, since the arguments put forward ignore a norm that does not grant the Court competence to hear possible violations of the right to work. 24. Lastly, I think that in this judgment, a valuable opportunity was lost to weigh the content of the right to equal protection and non-discrimination and the impacts of its violation. The exclusion of people with disabilities is one of the main problems posed by the classic contractarian theories of justice.17 The multiple difficulties they face in order to be treated as equals in terms of consideration and respect are obstacles that prevent them from exercising authentic citizenship. In this particular case, Mr. Guevara Díaz's application was evaluated based on a stereotyped notion of his abilities due to his intellectual disability. This was evidence of the presence of attitudinal barriers blocking his inclusion, proving that, under the social model of disability, his inclusion is “positional” in the sense that it depends on his interaction with the social obstacles to a persons’ ability to exercise their rights. Many times the source of these negative attitudes comes from the general ignorance about disability, its manifestations, and its issues, as well as about its potentialities. Sometimes, this disinformation is accompanied by indifference or, by an attitude that is directly detrimental to people with disabilities, as happened in this case. In this sense, one of the main challenges societies face is educational, since effective learning and inclusion help break down prejudices in the understanding that diversity is not a NUSSBAUM, Martha: Las fronteras de la justicia. Consideraciones sobre la exclusión, Paidós, Barcelona, (2007), pp.34-38. 17 5