38. Article 26 of the American Convention establishes the obligation of progressive development and the consequent duty of non-retrogression of rights that may be derived from the OAS Charter; therefore, the Court may directly supervise compliance with those obligations. However, this is not the case with the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights in their individual dimension, since the Court is not competent to do so, based on the methods of interpretation previously applied. In this sense, I consider that this Court does not have jurisdiction to examine the alleged violation of the right to social security that would be contained in that article. 39. Given that the dispute in this case concerns the alleged responsibility of the State for the failure to execute domestic judgments issued in favor of Mr. Muelle Flores, ordering the payment of a pension to which he was entitled, this Court should have considered that it is not competent to analyze the right to social security based on an interpretation of Article 26 of the American Convention. Thus, the Court should have admitted the preliminary objection filed by the State, and therefore it was not appropriate to continue with the in-depth analysis of the right to social security. 40. For all the foregoing reasons, I consider that this Court could not assume jurisdiction for the presumed violation of a right or freedom not included in the protection system of the American Convention or in the Protocol of San Salvador; therefore, it is unnecessary to issue a statement on the right to social security. 41. Finally, I wish to emphasize that, for practical purposes, it became irrelevant in this specific case to declare the violation of Article 26 of the Convention to the detriment of the victim, given that the discussion in this case focused on the failure to execute domestic judicial rulings that had already declared Mr. Muelle Flores’ right to a pension. In that sense it was sufficient for this Court to declare, as indeed it did, the violation of Articles 8(1), 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the Convention, as well as Article 21(1) and 21(2) thereof, to the detriment of Oscar Muelle Flores, to reach the same legal consequences derived from an incorrect interpretation by this Court regarding its jurisdiction and the analysis of the right to social security based on Article 26 of the American Convention. Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary