curtailed. They claimed, therefore, that the State violated diverse rights protected by Article 26 of the Convention, such as the rights to work, enjoy a fair salary, employment opportunities and proper working conditions for all, adequate nutrition and housing, health, proper working conditions and social security. Consequently, they argued that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 26 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 108. The State insisted that the arguments regarding the violation of Article 26 do not appear in the Commission’s factual framework. It maintained that it does not ignore its international human rights obligations in the area of economic, social and cultural rights; that it has been adopting measures, including laws, to progressively develop labor rights and that it has not only made efforts to repair the alleged victims and correct the possible harm to their work rights domestically, but that it also has granted reparations to dismissed workers, pursuant to domestic norms. B. Considerations of the Court 109. The Court must establish whether the dismissal of the congressional employees involves a violation of the right to work; in particular, with respect to work stability, understood as a right protected by Article 26 of the Convention. 110. The Court recalls that, on different occasions, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights have been rights recognized and protected under Article 26.84 The Court has held that “a literal, systematic, teleological and evolutive interpretation of the scope of its competence leads to the conclusion” that Article 26 protects those rights that are derived from the economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural standards contained in the OAS Charter. It has also recognized that “the scope of these rights must be understood in relation with other articles of the Convention [since] they are subject to the general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention” and may be monitored by the Court pursuant to Articles 62 and 63. This conclusion is based not only on formal matters, but on the interdependence and the indivisibility of civil and political rights and economic, social, cultural and environmental rights,85 as well as on their compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual. The Court has, thus, established that each specific case requires an 84 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of Comptroller") v. Peru, supra, paras. 97 to 103; Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, paras. 142 and 154; Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 192; Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 220; Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 100; Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 75 to 97; Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, paras. 34 to 37; Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru, supra, paras. 33 to 34; Case of Hernández v. Argentina, supra, para. 62; Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina, supra, para. 195, Case of Spoltore v. Argentina, supra, para. 85; Case of the Employees of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil, supra, para. 23, Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, paras. 26 and 27; Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 97; Case of the Buzos Miskitos (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, paras. 62 to 66; Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, paras. 32 to 35; Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 118; Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 182; Case of the Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 100 to 104; Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador supra, para. 153; Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, supra, para. 107; Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 87; Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, paras. 55 to 61 and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 127. The Court has “repeatedly maintained the interdependence and indivisibility of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, because they should all be understood integrally as human rights, without any specific hierarchy, and be enforceable in all cases before the competent authorities.” Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 141. 85 30