recognized that both categories of rights should be understood integrally and indivisibly as human rights, without any hierarchy between them, enforceable in all cases before the competent authorities.83 Similarly, the Court notes that the Preamble to the Convention,84 as well as various articles of the American Declaration, reveal that both civil and political rights, and ESCER were recognized by the States in the region as essential rights of the individual. Likewise, the Preamble to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador” (hereinafter “Protocol of San Salvador”) recognizes: the close relationship that exists between economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights, in that the different categories of rights constitute an indivisible whole based on the recognition of the dignity of the human person, for which reason both require permanent protection and promotion if they are to be fully realized, and the violation of some rights in favor of the realization of others can never be justified. 86. In this Court’s opinion, the interdependence and indivisibility of the rights recognized by the American Convention denies any separation, categorization or hierarchy between rights for the effects of their respect, protection and guarantee. This condition refers not only to the recognition of the ESCER as human rights protected by Article 26, but also to aspects relating to the competence of this Court to examine violations of such rights based on this article. In this regard, the Court recalls that, based on Articles 62 and 63 of the Convention, it exercises full jurisdiction over all its articles and provisions and these include Article 26. Also, complementing this, the Court recalls that, as any other organ with jurisdictional functions, it has the inherent authority to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence) and, also, “that the Court must take into account that the instruments accepting the optional clause on obligatory jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) presuppose the acceptance by the States that present them of the right of the Court to decide any dispute relating to its jurisdiction.”85 87. Despite the foregoing, the Court recognizes that a systematic interpretation of Article 26 of the Convention signifies respecting the limits of the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to other instruments of the inter-American system that refer to the ESCER. In this regard, the Court notes the tensions that may exist as regards the Court’s competence to examine violations of rights derived from the OAS Charter, by application of Articles 26, 1(1), 2, 62 and 63 of the Convention, and the competence recognized by Article 19(6) of the Protocol of of May 21. 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 131, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 172. 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. 83 The Preamble to the Convention establishes: “Reaffirming their intention to consolidate in this hemisphere, within the framework of democratic institutions, a system of personal liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights of man; […] Reiterating that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free men enjoying freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights; and Considering that the Third Special Inter-American Conference (Buenos Aires, 1967) approved the incorporation into the Charter of the Organization itself of broader standards with respect to economic, social, and educational rights and resolved that an inter-American convention on human rights should determine the structure, competence, and procedure of the organs responsible for these matters.” 84 Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, paras. 32 and 34, and Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 38. 85 30