Convention, it is necessary to take into account all the provisions of which it is composed and the agreements and instruments that are formally related to it, such as the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the American Declaration”), because they permit verification of whether the interpretation given to a specific norm or term is coherent with the meaning of the other provisions. 79 83. In this regard, the Court underscores that the scope of the rights derived from Article 26 of the Convention should be understood in relation to the other articles of the American Convention and other instruments that are relevant for its interpretation. Accordingly, the Court has noted that, although Article 26 is located in Chapter III of the Convention entitled “Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” it is also placed 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 in Chapter I (entitled “General Obligations”), as are Articles 3 to 25 contained in Chapter II (entitled “Civil and Political Rights”). Thus, the Court considers that the general obligations “to respect” and “to ensure” rights, together with the obligation relating to “domestic legal effects” of Article 2 of the Convention, apply to all rights, whether civil and political, or economic, social, cultural and environmental.80 84. Consequently, since States have an obligation to respect and ensure the rights indicated in Article 26, in the terms of Article 1(1) of the Convention, the Court is competent to assess whether there has been a violation of a right derived from Article 26 in the terms of Articles 62 and 63 of the Convention. The latter article establishes that when there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by the Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated and that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied. In addition, the Court has indicated on numerous occasions that, under Article 1(1), any violation of the human rights recognized in the Convention that can be attributed, pursuant to the rules of international law, to the act or omission of any public authority, constitutes an act that can be attributed to the State and that engages its responsibility in the terms established in the Convention.81 Thus, the Court considers that, where it is possible to identify an act or omission that can be attributed to the State which violates a right protected by Article 26, the Court may determine the State’s responsibility for this act and establish the appropriate remedy. 85. The Court notes that the fact that the rights derived from Article 26 are subject to the general obligations of the American Convention results no only from formal matters, but also from the reciprocal indivisibility and interdependence of the civil and political rights and the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights.82 In this regard, the Court has Cf. Entitlement of legal entities to hold rights under the Inter-American Human Rights System (Interpretation and scope of Article 1(2), in relation to Articles 1(2), 8, 11(2), 13, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 44, 46 and 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as of Article 8(1)(A) and (B) of the Protocol of San Salvador). Advisory Opinion OC-22/16 of February 26, 2016. Series A No. 22, para. 45. 79 Cf. 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. 100, and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 100. 80 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 164, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 18. 81 Cf. 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. 101, and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 100; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment 82 29