as my concurring opinions in the cases of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador9 and Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile.10 i) The practice of addressing the alleged violations in a single operative paragraph and the justiciability of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights 4. In previous separate opinions I have described in detail numerous arguments that reveal the logical and legal contradictions and inconsistencies from which the theory of the direct and autonomous justiciability of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (hereinafter “ESCER”) under Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) suffers. Indeed, this position assumed by the majority of the Court’s judges since the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru disregards the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,11 distorts the nature of the obligation of progressivity,12 ignores the intention of the States reflected in the Protocol of San Salvador,13 and undermines the Court’s legitimacy; 14 just to mention some of the arguments. 5. On this occasion, it is not my intention to dwell on the points indicated above, but rather to focus attention on a practice related to this legal position that is manifested when declaring the violations in the operative paragraphs and also when addressing the allegations in a single chapter. 6. First, as I have pointed out in the cases of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru15 and Hernández v. Argentina,16 the Court has randomly and without justification, modified its method of presenting the operative paragraphs of its decisions, seeking to render invisible the internal disagreements concerning the scope of Article 26. 7. Furthermore, this method, which groups together in a single operative paragraph the declaration of all the violations, avoids revealing the divergent positions concerning the justiciability of the ESCER to the detriment of the legitimacy conferred by the unanimous position of the Court in relation to the other rights that were violated. I refer to the fact that, although the principal legitimacy, or legitimacy of origin, of the Court’s decisions is based on the majority established in the Rules of Procedure, this is evidently perceived more clearly when all the judges are in agreement with the final decision. In this case, the fact of grouping Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 9 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 10 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 13. 11 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 10. 12 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 3. 13 Cf. 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. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 23. 14 Cf. 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. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 6. 15 Cf. Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 17. 16 2