4 rendered to the State. Even when the Court did not find, in the case in point, the non-compliance with Article 26 of the American Convention- a conclusion that I agree on with- such plea determined new reflections of the Tribunal about the progressive development of such rights and its own competence to examine the matter. 16. I recognize that the competence of the Court has been very limited, up to the present, in reference to the rights of this nature. This treatment does not only derive from an "explicit" restricted actionability according to the Inter-American corpus juris, which is widely known, but from the characteristics of the cases brought to the Court's attention and that constitute, obviously, the framework within which the Tribunal acts to examine the Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador. 17. The Court cannot hear cases whose flow before a court is made by means of an application. Even then, the Tribunal has examined issues that relate to social rights or are forthwith identified with such rights, by means of the analysis of violations of rights embodied in the American Convention, particularly the ones related to property, the protection of integrity (designed in health issues) or the special measures for the protection of children. 18. In the case under study, the Tribunal has made progress, as far as it deemed practicable, in the considerations related to the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Of course, it reasserted its competence-which must be well-establishedto rule over possible non-compliance with Article 26. This issue is within the realm of matters concerning the interpretation and application of the American Convention, whose knowledge and solution is of the Tribunal’s concern. 19. By entering into this realm, the Court recalled several steps in the Inter-American regulation of the matter, taking into account the regulatory procedure that led to the framing of Article 26 and its location in the Convention, under the category of "protected rights". It does not deal only with, then, descriptive expression that induce public policies, but with legal methods that determine the meaning and content of such policies, with provisions in which such policies are expressed and with the acts in which they are implemented. 20. The Court quotes, moreover, the opinion of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee for the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which have explored the assessment of the progressive development of this kind of rights and the indicators that would allow establishing and appraising, reasonably, the progress as well as the regression. 21. The Court understands that the observance of Article 26 -imperative rule, not just a political suggestion- is subject to a claim or demand before the instances called to rule upon this aspect, within the framework of the domestic law or in the foreign realm, according to the constitutional decisions and the international commitments assumed by the State. The assessment has two dimensions: the observation of the progressive development, which makes the best effort to achieve it, and the denial of the regression, which is contrary to the principles and the corpus juris of the human rights and that it also must be assessed by the corresponding venues.