3 social rights matters. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted and stated that, besides regulating the progressive development of these rights, a systematic interpretation of the American Convention requires an understanding that the obligations of respect and guarantee are applied also to economic, social, and cultural rights. In fact, the Court has stated that this article, “while it is under chapter III of the Convention,” it is also part of Part I of the instrument, and intituled “State Obligations and Rights Protected,” and 4 therefore, it is subject to the general obligations contained in articles 1.1 and 2. In this regard, the obligation established in article 26 functions as a special standard in relation to the general standard enshrined in article 2 in regard to the adoption of domestic legal measures. 341. In the instant case, there are laws and regulations by which the access to various benefits has been established in relation to the right to health and the right to social security. However, the parties argued about the alleged obstacles to the access of the benefits aforementioned. In this regard, in my opinion, the issue is not a discussion about the progressive realization or regression of these rights, but instead about the duty to guarantee them. Therefore, it would be useful to use the sources which allow for the interpretation of the content of the obligation to guarantee the right to health and the right to social security. Generally, these sources specify the manner in which the State must guarantee the effective use of social rights and the obligation to adopt measures to remove 5 any possible obstacles against the enjoyment of the said rights. 342. To determine these sources, one needs to apply the pro persona principle and bear in mind that, according to the content of article 29.b of the Pact of San Jose, the provisions of the American Convention cannot be interpreted in a way which “restricts the enjoyment or the exercise of the rights recognized in other conventions to which the States are 6 parties.” Consequently, for the purpose of providing content to both rights, it is necessary to refer to treaties such as the Protocol of San Salvador, the International Covenant on 7 Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and those specified by the entity in charge of its interpretation, the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 343. Considering that the Protocol of San Salvador could be used for the interpretation of the scope of the provisions of the American Convention, it is, in my opinion, necessary to establish some specifics. Although the Protocol of San Salvador establishes that among the social rights it enshrines, only the right to education and some labor union rights will be justiciable (article 19), this Protocol did not establish any provision aimed at limiting the scope of the American Convention. Consequently, when interpreting the Convention one must carry out a systematic interpretation of both treaties, taking into account their purpose. Moreover, the Vienna Convention demands an interpretation in good faith of the terms of article 26, as was previously done to determine the scope of the textual referral performed on the article before mentioned as to the Charter of the OAS and its relation to articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention. This interpretation in good faith requires the 3 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198. 4 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, supra. 5 This is the general scope of the duty of guarantee of all human rights. I/A Court H.R., Case of VelásquezRodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4 6 I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 52. 7 Approved by Argentina by Law 23.313, ratified on August 8, 1986. 2