Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter “Protocol of San Salvador”). 23 6. The second perspective, in contrast to the first, argues for “direct justiciability.” It claims that the Court has jurisdiction to hear autonomous violations of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights on the basis of Article 26 of the Convention, in the understanding that they are justiciable on an individual basis. 4 This approach subsumes the analysis of the violations of ESCER to Article 26, recognizing a direct remittance to the economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural standards found in the OAS Charter. An analysis of infringements of ESCER will always be seen as a violation of Article 26 with reference to the OAS Charter or the American Declaration, leaving aside an integration with civil and political rights. 7. The third perspective, which is the one that I endorse, is that which we could call “the perspective of simultaneity.” As I have mentioned in previous concurring opinions and repeating my reasoning there, 5 my view on this option derives from a full recognition of the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and inter-relationship among the human rights, which serves as the foundation of the Court’s jurisdiction when it hears cases of violations of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. I state this in the belief that human rights are interdependent and indivisible in such a way that civil and political rights are intertwined with economic, social, cultural and environmental rights: some rights cannot be fully enjoyed without the others. I endorse the “perspective of simultaneity” and I reaffirm that this interdependence and indivisibility allows us to view the individual integrally as a full holder of rights, which affects the justiciability of his or her rights. They are especially inseparable in circumstances such as those encountered in the present case. 2 This was the majority approach of the Inter-American Court until the judgment in Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Among the other cases that have followed this approach are: "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits,, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112 and Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, to mention two examples, as well as Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits,, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298. 3 “Any instance in which the rights established in paragraph a) of Article 8 and in Article 13 are violated by action directly attributable to a State Party to this Protocol may give rise, through participation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and, when applicable, of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, to application of the system of individual petitions governed by Article 44 through 51 and 61 through 69 of the American Convention on Human Rights.” Article 19(6), Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. “Protocol of San Salvador.” 4 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, paras. 142 and 154; Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 192; Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 220; Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 100; Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 75 to 97; Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, paras. 34 to 37; Case of National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, paras. 33 to 34; Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 62 and Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C No. 400, para. 195. 5 Cf. Concurring opinion to the judgment of November 21, 2019 in National Association of the Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (Ancejub-Sunat) v. Peru; to the judgment of November 22, 2019 in Hernández v. Argentina, to the judgment of November 24, 2020 in Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina and to the judgment of July 15, 2020 in Employees of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antonio de Jesús and their families v. Brazil. 2

Select target paragraph3