forth”11, “guaranteed,”12 “protected” (consagrado)13 or “protected” (protegido),14 which is not the case of the rights referred to in Article 26 as “derived” from the Charter of the Organization of American States;15 because, the Convention itself refers to such rights separately from the civil and political rights, according them a different treatment to that given to the latter; because Article 26 is entitled ”Progressive Development” so that the obligation that it consequently established is to adopt measures to realize those rights and not that they are already justiciable before the Court; because those rights are referred to by the OAS Charter as “basic objectives”16 and “principles and mechanisms”;17 that is, as components of public policies that should be adopted to realize the said rights; because even the authoritative history of Article 26 supports the preceding interpretation, and finally, because this is in keeping with the “reinforcing or complementing” nature of the protection of the Inter-American Convention.18 In other words, the interpretation of this article provided in the judgment does not correspond to the provisions of Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.19 5. Lastly, it should be added that the undersigned truly regrets that, by voting against the said fifth operative paragraph for the reason indicated above, he has had to do so also with regard to the other provisions of the Convention included in this paragraph. This is so because the Court has not proceeded in the same way as in another case,20 in which the reference to Article 26 was made in a different operative paragraph to the one citing the other applicable articles of the Convention, thus making it possible to dissent from the former and agree with the latter. Art.48(1)(f): “When the Commission receives a petition or communication alleging violation of any of the rights protected by this Convention, it shall proceed as follows: … (f) The Commission shall place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for the human rights recognized in this Convention.” Art. 45(1): “Any State Party may, when it deposits its instrument of ratification of or adherence to this Convention, or at any later time, declare that it recognizes the competence of the Commission to receive and examine communications in which a State Party alleges that another State Party has committed a violation of a human right set forth in this Convention.” 11 Art. 47(b) “The Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 if: … the petition or communication does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention.” 12 13 Supra footnote 10, art.48(1)(f). Art.4(1): “Right to Life. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 14 Art. 63(1): “Art. 63(1): “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 15 Hereinafter, the OAS. 16 Art. 34. 17 Art. 45(f). 18 Para. 3 of the Preamble of the Convention. Art. 31(1). A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” 19 Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina, supra, footnote 8. 20 3