15 k) for its part, the second article, No. 27, stated the following: “Monitoring Compliance with the Obligations. The States Parties shall transmit to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights a copy of each of the reports and studies that they submit annually to the Executive Committees of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council and the Inter-American Council for Education, Science and Culture, in their respective fields, so that the Commission can verify their compliance with the obligations determined previously, which are the essential basis for the exercise of other rights enshrined in this Convention;” l) the proposal regarding the aforementioned Article 27 referred to “reports and studies” that would enable the Commission to verify whether States were complying with their obligations and distinguished between “obligations determined previously”, obviously in Article 26, and “other rights enshrined in this Convention”; and m) we may conclude, therefore, that at no time were the economic, social and cultural rights “derived” from the standards set forth in the OAS Charter - among them the right to social security - included in the protection system along with the civil and political rights “recognized” in the Convention. 34. In synthesis, there is no doubt whatsoever that Article 26 was adopted in good faith, so that it would actually have the ’effet utile’ of being applied in a manner different from that envisaged in the previous provisions contained in Chapter II of Part I of the Convention. The element that distinguishes it is, precisely, that the rights to which it refers are not “enshrined” in the Convention, but are “derived” from the standards set forth in the OAS Charter, and also that they are not justiciable before the Court. C. Functional or teleological method 35. In attempting to specify the object and purpose of the conventional provision in question, it seems obvious that: a) the purpose of the States Parties to the Convention is “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;”86 b) in general, as I have reiterated to the Court on several occasions, “the object and purpose of the Convention is to protect the fundamental rights of human beings;”87 c) however, its more specific object and purpose, explicitly stated therein, is to determine “the structure, competence and procedure of the organs responsible for these matters;” 88 and d) within that structural framework, it is clear that the specific object and purpose of Article 26 of the Convention is that the States Parties “adopt measures, both internally and through 86 Footnote 44. 87 Para. 36. 88 Footnote 44.