primacy of the text; in other words, the application of objective interpretation criteria. 69 Thus, in a text concerning human rights, the appropriate method involves an interpretation based on objective criteria related to the text itself, as opposed to subjective criteria relating merely to the intention of the parties, because such treaties are not traditional multilateral treaties concluded on the basis of a reciprocal exchange of rights for the benefit of the contracting parties; rather, their object and purpose are the protection of human rights before the State and before other States.70 78. In this regard, the Court considers that the ordinary meaning that should be given to the rule established in Article 26 of the Convention is that the States undertook to realize “rights” derived from the economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural rights set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS Charter”). Accordingly, the Court notes that, even though the OAS Charter establishes “principles” and “goals” aimed at comprehensive development, it also refers to certain “rights” both explicitly and implicitly. In this way, from a literal interpretation of the text of Article 26, it can be affirmed that it refers precisely to the obligation of the States to achieve the realization of the “rights” that it is possible to derive from the OAS Charter. The text of the provision should be interpreted in such a way that its terms acquire meaning and a specific significance, which, in the case of Article 26, means understanding that the States agreed to adopt measures in order to fully realize the “rights” recognized in the OAS Charter. 79. Furthermore, the Court considers that the mention in Article 26 that the States undertake “to adopt measures,” “with a view to achieving progressively […] the full realization of the rights” derived from the OAS Charter should be understood as a formulation referring to the nature of the obligation that emanates from this norm, and not to the inexistence of State obligations, strictly speaking. The Court recalls that obligations exist – worded in similar terms to Article 26 – that are recognized in other articles of the Convention, without any dispute as to whether these impose obligations that can be enforced at the international level. In particular, the Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention recognizes the existence of the programmatic commitment of the States to adopt “such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to th[e] rights and freedoms” recognized by the Convention, which has led the Court to assess in its case law whether the State has complied with the adoption of such “measures.”71 80. In this regard, the Court agrees with the interpretation made by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter “the CESCR”) of the scope and nature of Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter “ICESCR”). This article establishes the undertaking of each State Party “to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.”72 The CESCR has interpreted that, while the ICESCR “provides for progressive realization of the Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4.2 and 4.4 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, para. 50. 69 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 42, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 104. 70 Cf. Case of "The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 90, and Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 169. 71 72 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 2(1). 27