E.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 151. The representatives argued that there was a violation of the right to work to the detriment of Mr. Palacio Urrutia, under the terms of Article 26 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 13 and 1(1) of the same instrument. This violation occurred because the criminal proceedings constituted an indirect restriction against the alleged victim continuing to practice journalism, given that he was threatened and sanctioned for practicing his profession. In addition, this violation took place because, as a consequence of the criminal proceedings against him, he had to resign from his job at El Universo, as a means to prevent future sanctions against him and against the media outlet. They also pointed out that as a result of the chilling effect generated by this process, no other media outlet in Ecuador hired him and he even had to leave the country. The representatives added that the fear of Rafael Correa and Correismo in power also caused the economic failure of the news outlet itself on the Internet. 152. The State argued that Article 26 of the American Convention does not recognize a catalogue of rights, but rather refers to the State's obligations in terms of progression. Therefore, it is not for the Court to rule on violations of the right to work to the detriment of Mr. Palacio Urrutia. Similarly, it maintained that the alleged indirect restriction on the right to work due to the proceedings against the alleged victim never occurred, which explains why the alleged victim continued publishing on a regular basis until July 2011, the date on which he decided to quit his job. The State maintained that there was no limitation on his right to work, and that there is no proof that he cannot continue to carry out his work as a journalist. Accordingly, it concluded that there is no causal link between the criminal proceedings against him and the resignation of his employment, and therefore there is no international responsibility of the State. The Commission did not make specific arguments regarding the alleged violation of the right to work. E.2. Considerations of the Court 153. This Court has noted that Articles 45(b) and (c) 217, 46 218 and 34(g) 219 of the OAS Charter establish a series of norms that make it possible to identify the right to work. In 217 Cf. Article 45 of the Charter of the OAS. “The Member States, convinced that man can only achieve the full realization of his aspirations within a just social order, along with economic development and true peace, agree to dedicate every effort to the application of the following principles and mechanisms: a) All human beings, without distinction as to race, sex, nationality, creed, or social condition, have a right to material well‐being and to their spiritual development, under circumstances of liberty, dignity, equality of opportunity, and economic security; b) Work is a right and a social duty, it gives dignity to the one who performs it, and it should be performed under conditions, including a system of fair wages, that ensure life, health, and a decent standard of living for the worker and his family, both during his working years and in his old age, or when any circumstance deprives him of the possibility of working; c) Employers and workers, both rural and urban, have the right to associate themselves freely for the defense and promotion of their interests, including the right to collective bargaining and the workers' right to strike, and recognition of the juridical personality of associations and the protection of their freedom and independence, all in accordance with applicable laws; […]”. 218 Cf. Article 46 of the Charter of the OAS. “The Member States recognize that, in order to facilitate the process of Latin American regional integration, it is necessary to harmonize the social legislation of the developing countries, especially in the labor and social security fields, so that the rights of the workers shall be equally protected, and they agree to make the greatest efforts possible to achieve this goal.”. Cf. Article 34(g) of the Charter of the OAS. “The Member States agree that equality of opportunity, the elimination of extreme poverty, equitable distribution of wealth and income and the full participation of their peoples in decisions relating to their own development are, among others, basic objectives of integral development. To achieve them, they likewise agree to devote their utmost efforts to accomplishing the 219 50