Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, decent work should at least offer “an income allowing workers to support themselves and their families.” 75 42. An analysis of obligations also plays a fundamental role in the case of the right to work, since, as the ESCER Committee has pointed out, the State has obligations of a progressive nature (and a prohibition of retrogressive measures) under this right, 76 which cannot be evaluated from the scope of the application of Article 23(1)(c). 43. In sum, this jurisprudential advance is important since it adequately measures the global and integral impediments that may arise in each case. This new jurisprudential dimension crystallizes the notion that all human rights are interdependent and indivisible and that there is no hierarchy among them, making possible the international responsibility of the States for the failure to respect or guarantee in light of Article 1(1) of the Convention. IV. CONCLUSION 44. More than 15 years ago, the Court delivered Dismissed Congressional Employees v. Peru, which is intimately related, contextually and factually, to this case. In his separate opinion, then Judge Antônio Cançado Trindade —whose recent loss we deeply lament— reflected on the interpretative scope of Article 26 of the Convention: 77 7. Regarding the unsatisfactory paragraph 136 of this judgment, which is similar to the unsatisfactory wording of Article 26 of the American Convention (a product of its time), owing to absolute lack of time, in view of the accelerated work “methodology” adopted recently by the Court, over my objection, I will merely reiterate my understanding, expressed in numerous publications over the years, that all human rights, even economic, social and cultural rights, are promptly and immediately demandable and justiciable, once the interrelation and indivisibility of all human rights are affirmed at both the doctrinal and the operational levels – in other words, both in legal writings and in hermeneutics and the application of human rights. 78 45. Today, more than ever, the illuminating reflections of the Court’s former president are clear on the necessity that all human rights are promptly and immediately enforceable and justiciable. The illustrious jurist repeated this longing in the resolution on monitoring compliance of the judgment in that case. 79 The steps taken in interAmerican jurisprudence on the immediate autonomy and justiciability of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights has, thus, become a chain novel written by the 75 76 and 21. UN ESCR Committee, General Comment No. 18, right to work, E/C.12/GC/18 (2006), para. 7. UN ESCR Committee, General Comment No. 18, right to work, E/C.12/GC/18 (2006), paras. 19, 20 Separate opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade in Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 7. 78 . A.A. Cançado Trindade, La Cuestión de la Protección Internacional de los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales: Evolución y Tendencias Actuales, San José, Costa Rica, IIDH (Series for NGOs, vol. 6), 1992, pp. 161; A.A. Cançado Trindade, “La question de la protection internationale des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels: évolution et tendances actuelles”, 44 Boletín de la Sociedad Brasileña de Derecho Internacional (1991), pp. 13-41; A.A. Cançado Trindade, “La Protección Internacional de los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales en el Final del Siglo”, en El Derecho Internacional en un Mundo en Transformación - Liber Amicorum en Homenaje al Prof. E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, vol. I, Montevideo, Fundación de Cultura Universitaria, 1994, pp. 345-363; A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el Siglo XXI, 1a. ed., Santiago, Editorial Jurídica de Chile, 2001, pp. 91-142, among other writings. 79 Dissenting opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade in Request of Interpretation of Judgment in the Case of The Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Judgment of November 30, 2007, para. 60. 77 13