justifies the application of the article with regard to that right. 46 Thus, the purpose of this opinion is to present, once more, my position that the rights mentioned in Article 26, including the right to work, are not justiciable before the Court – for the reasons described below – with some exceptions that do not include the situation in the instant case. 28. It is extremely important, therefore, to indicate at once that this opinion does not refer to the existence of the right to work, or to the other economic, social and cultural rights. The existence of those rights is not the purpose of this opinion. To the contrary, what I maintain here, let me insist, is merely that the Court, contrary to what is indicated in the judgment, lacks competence to examine violations of those rights under the provisions of Article 26, and that the right referred to in the instant case is not included among the exceptions to this general rule. 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 46 47 48 Paras. 104 and 105. Supra, footnote 23. Supra, II, c.