47 The common intervenors’ arguments 134. Regarding Article 26 of the Convention, they alleged that: (a) Peru is a State party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador,” so that the scope of Article 26 of the Convention should be determined, bearing in mind the evolutive interpretation of international instruments and in accordance with the pro homine principle established in Article 29(b) of the Convention; (b) The progressive development obligation is violated in this case, in relation to the right to social security established in Article 45 of the OAS Charter; (c) The fact that the State’s Administration has not reinstated the dismissed employees constitutes a grave violation of their labor and social security rights recognized in various international instruments for the protection of human rights; (d) This case is an example of the State’s recurrent policy of failing to comply with its international obligation to protect fundamental human rights, such as the right to employment and to social security, so that there is a systematic practice of violation of economic, social and cultural rights in Peru; (e) The alleged victims were dismissed arbitrarily; they were unjustly deprived of their employment and of their right to remuneration and other work-related benefits; as a result, their poverty level increased and this substantially affected their life projects; (f) The violation of the alleged victims’ right to social security occurred when their access and that of their dependants to the coverage provided by the former Peruvian Social Security Institute, as insured parties, was interrupted; (g) The arbitrary dismissal of the alleged victims and the failure to reinstate them in their posts meant that they ceased to accumulate years of service for social security purposes, which prevented many employees from obtaining a retirement pension; (h) Many of the dismissed employees were denied their right to receive a disability pension because, during the years they endeavored to claim their labor rights, their health was seriously affected and they were unable to obtain the necessary financial resources for a decent life. This situation has even led to the death of many of them and, to date, the right of their families to a surviving spouse pension has not been recognized.