-2signature and ratification of a treaty, and the competences that the said treaty may accord to the organ or court that monitors it. In this regard, it is true that all rights are intrinsically connected and should not be considered in isolation – which is why I support the justiciability of ESCR by way of connectivity – but the indivisible nature of rights is not a sufficient reason to modify the competence of a court, as proposed by those who seek direct justiciability by means of a broad interpretation of Article 26 of the Convention. 5. Having clarified the foregoing, I consider it pertinent, in the first place, to establish the obligations that arise from Article 26 of the Convention. This article stipulates that: CHAPTER III ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS Article 26. 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, the full realization of the rights implicit in 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 (underlining added). 6. Regarding the scope of Article 26, the Court has indicated that the main obligation arising from this article is the progressive development of economic, social and cultural rights,2 which entails “an obligation – although conditional – of nonregressivity, that should not always be understood as prohibiting measures that restrict the exercise of a right.”3 In addition, the Court has asserted that the general obligations under Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention are also applicable to this article.4 7. However, Article 26 does not establish a list of rights, but refers directly to the Charter of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the Charter” or “the OAS Charter”). A reading of the Charter reveals that this does not contain a list of subjective, clear and precise rights either; rather, to the contrary, it includes a list of expectations and goals that the States of the region are striving to attain, which makes it difficult to surmise which rights the article is referring to. In brief, there are no express references to the ESCR and, in order to affirm that they are, in fact, established in the Charter, it is necessary to perform a fairly extensive task of interpretation. An example of this is the right to health, which was analyzed in this case. Some authors affirm that this right is clearly established in the Charter; however, when one looks for this in the text, one finds only two indistinct references in Articles 345 and 45.6 In this regard, I fully agree that “it is not enough just to infer a right by 2 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 147. 3 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, para. 103. 4 “[I]t is pertinent to observe that although Article 26 is found in Chapter III of the Convention, entitled ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,’ it is also located in Part I of this instrument, entitled, “State Obligations and Rights Protected” and, consequently, it is subject to the general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of Chapter I (entitled ‘General Obligations’), as are Articles 3 to 25 indicated in Chapter II (entitled ‘Civil and Political Rights).” Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Officev. Peru, para. 100. 5 Article 34( i) of the OAS Charter establishes among the “basic objectives of integral development” the “[p]rotection of man’s potential through the extension and application of modern medical science” (underlining added).