29. However, this does not mean that violations of those rights cannot be litigated before the corresponding domestic jurisdictions. This will depend on what the respective internal laws establish, a matter that, in any case, falls outside the purpose of this text and that is part of the internal, domestic or exclusive jurisdiction of the States Parties to the Convention.47 Nevertheless, it is feasible that, in the future, all or some of the States Parties to the Convention might agree on protocols that establish the justiciability before the Court of possible violations of other economic, social and cultural rights than those established in the Protocol of San Salvador. 30. Consequently, this opinion holds that it is necessary to distinguish between human rights in general, which must be respected in all circumstances based on the provisions of international law, and those that, in addition, may be justiciable before an international jurisdiction. In this regard, it is worth pointing out that there are only three international human rights courts; namely, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights. Also, not all the States of the respective regions have accepted the jurisdiction of the corresponding court. Also, not all the regions of the world have an international human rights jurisdiction, nor has a universal court of human rights been created. 31. Therefore, the fact that a State has not accepted to be subject to an international human rights jurisdiction does not mean that such rights do not exist and, consequently, cannot possibly be violated. If this happens, international society can use diplomatic or political measures to achieve the restoration of respect for the said rights, even though such measures may be too weak for this purpose. Thus, one thing is the international recognition of such rights, and another is the international instrument used to achieve the restoration of their effectiveness in situations in which they are violated. III. INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 26 32. Therefore, based on the foregoing – in particular, as regards the interpretation of treaties48 – Article 26 should be interpreted in keeping with the methods indicated above. This article establishes: “Progressive Development. The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means and subject to available resources, the full realization of the rights implicit in [Note: literally “derived from” in the Spanish original] the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires.” 33. However, first a preliminary note. Although it is laudable that judgments cite or invoke previous judgments to support a similar line of reasoning, it is also true that the mere reference to them is not sufficient to substantiate this. If this were so, it would be sufficient, as appears to occur in the instant case,49 to assert that, since the Court has already made a ruling in a certain sense, in this case it will make the same ruling. Moreover, by proceeding in this way, it should be recalled that the Court is confirming the premises that supported the precedents, so that it may be essential for anyone dissenting with the decision, as in the 47 Supra, footnote 23. 48 Supra, II, c. 49 Paras. 26 and 104. 10