18. The important point of this consideration on the interdependence of civil and political rights with economic, social and cultural rights, made by the Inter-American Court in the Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. v. Peru, stems from the fact that this ruling was made when examining the interpretative scope of Article 26 of the American Convention, with regard to a right (social security), that is not expressly recognized to be justiciable in Article 19(6) of the Protocol of San Salvador. 37 Prior to its analysis of the merits, the Inter-American Court had expressly rejected the preliminary objection of lack of competence ratione materiae filed by the defendant State: 38 […] the State argued that the right to social security fell outside the sphere of competence of the Court owing to the subject-matter, because it is not included in the American Convention, and is not one of the two rights (trade union rights and the right to education) that, exceptionally, are justiciable before the inter-American system, as indicated in Article 19(6) of the Protocol of San Salvador. 19. The Inter-American Court, without mentioning the Protocol of San Salvador to determine whether it had competence in this regard, 39 finding that this was not necessary because the direct violation of that international instrument had not been alleged, rejected the State’s preliminary objection, considering, on the one hand, that as any organ with jurisdictional functions, the Inter-American Court had the authority inherent in its attributes to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence); and, on the other hand, that “the Court must take into account that the instruments accepting the optional clause on binding jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) supposes the acceptance of the Court’s right to decide any dispute relating to its jurisdiction by the States that present this instrument. 40 In addition, the Court has indicated previously that the broad terms in which the Convention was drafted indicate that the Court exercises full jurisdiction over all its articles and provisions.” 41 20. In this important precedent, the Inter-American Court rejected the preliminary objection of the defendant State that expressly argued that this jurisdictional organ lacked competence to rule on a non-justiciable right under Article 19(6) 42 of the Protocol of San Salvador. In other words, by rejecting this preliminary objection and examining the merits of the matter, the Inter-American Court considered that it had competence to hear and to decide (even to be able to declare violated) Article 26 of the Pact of San José. However, in that particular case, it found that there had not been a violation of this treaty-based provision. 43 When examining the merits of the matter, the Inter-American Court considered that the economic, social and cultural rights referred to in Article 26 are subject to the 37 See the content of this provision, supra, nota 25. 38 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. v. Peru (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra, para. 12. 39 In this regard, see the criticisms of Ruiz-Chiriboga, Oswaldo, The American Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador: Two Intertwined Treaties. Non-enforceability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the InterAmerican System. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights. Vol. 31/2, 2013, pp. 156 to 183, on p. 167. 40 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, paras. 32 and 34; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 23, and Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 38. 41 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 29, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Preliminary objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. 93, para. 27. 42 See the content of this article, supra nota 25. 43 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. v. Peru (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra, third operative paragraph. 8