rights, the Inter-American Court can only do so by considering their relationship with civil and political rights, which are explicitly recognized by Articles 3 to 25 of the Convention. Furthermore, two rights could also be declared to be directly violated: the right to education and trade union rights. This is because both rights are explicitly recognized as "justiciable" by the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (hereinafter "Protocol of San Salvador"), specifically in its Article 19(6).2 6. The second view, in contradiction to the first, advocates for "direct justiciability." It argues that the Court has jurisdiction to address autonomous violations of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights based on Article 26 of the Convention, understanding that they would be individually justiciable.3 This position, in turn, incorporates the analysis of violations of ESCER under Article 26, recognizing a direct reference to the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural norms contained in the OAS Charter. The analysis of violations of ESCER will always be conducted in relation to a violation of Article 26, referencing the OAS Charter or the American Declaration, without integrating civil and political rights. 7. The third position, which I adhere to, is what we can call the "simultaneity position." As I have mentioned in previous concurrent votes and reiterating the arguments presented therein,4 my position regarding this diverse position arises from the full recognition of the universality, indivisibility, interdependence, and interconnectedness of human rights, this recognition serves as the basis for the Court's jurisdiction to address individual violations of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights. The aforementioned is based on the conviction 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. No right can be fully enjoyed in isolation. I adhere to the "simultaneity position." I reaffirm that This was the majority position of the Inter-American Court before the issuance of the Judgment in the Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Some other cases where this position is evident include: "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, and Case of Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125. To provide two examples, such as in the Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298. Likewise, in the event that the rights established in paragraph (a) of Articles 8 and 13 were violated by an action directly attributable to a State party to this Protocol, such a situation could give rise, through the involvement of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights and, when appropriate, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, to the application of the individual petitions system regulated by Articles 44 to 51 and 61 to 69 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2 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 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 Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 75-97; Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, paras. 34-37; Case of the 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 Hernandez v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 62, and Case of Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C No. 400, para. 195. 3 4 Cf. Concurrent vote to the judgment of November 21, 2019, of Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru; to the judgment of November 22, 2019, in Case of Hernández v. Argentina; Case of Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina, and the judgment of July 15, 2020, of Case of Employees of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesús and their Families v. Brazil. 2