25. In this regard, it should be recalled that the judgment indicates that the “Court reaffirms its competence to examine and decide disputes relating to Article 26 of the American Convention as an integral part of the rights listed in its text, regarding which Article 1(1) establishes obligations of respect and guarantee,” 41 adding that “as indicated in previous decisions,42 the considerations related to the possible occurrence of such violations must be examined when analyzing the merits of the matter.”43 26. Since the judgment provides no other reason that the one briefly expressed above as justification for this decision, it obliges me, in order to substantiate this dissenting opinion, to resort to the considerations concerning that substantive part where, as we shall see,44 it provides arguments to support the said decision it has adopted. 27. However, to do this, it is necessary to recall that, when alluding to the said Article 26,45 the judgment does so referring specifically to the right to work; in other words, it justifies the application of the article with regard to that right. 46 Thus, the purpose of this opinion is to present, once more, my position that the rights mentioned in Article 26, including the right to work, are not justiciable before the Court – for the reasons described below – with some exceptions that do not include the situation in the instant case. 28. It is extremely important, therefore, to indicate at once that this opinion does not refer to the existence of the right to work, or to the other economic, social and cultural rights. The existence of those rights is not the purpose of this opinion. To the contrary, what I maintain here, let me insist, is merely that the Court, contrary to what is indicated in the judgment, lacks competence to examine violations of those rights under the provisions of Article 26, and that the right referred to in the instant case is not included among the exceptions to this general rule. 41 Footnote to para. 26 of the judgment: Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, paras. 16, 17 and 100; 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 Discharged Employees of PetroPeru 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 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 and 34; Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 62; 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; Case of Spoltore v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 9, 2020. Series C No. 404, para. 85, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 23. Footnote to para. 26: Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 37, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil.. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 23. 42 43 Para. 26. 44 Infra, paras. 55 and ff. 45 Hereinafter, Article 26. 46 Paras. 104 and 105. 9