44 C. Right to social security C.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 167. The representatives pointed out that the central issue in this case was the deprivation of access to and enjoyment of the right to social security, and that the State committed an autonomous violation of that right, derived from Article 26 of the American Convention. They argued that the State failed to guarantee the right to social security given the “26 years of daily denial and arbitrary conduct perpetrated initially by a State-owned mining company, followed by the absence of State protection during the privatization process, and the failure to execute domestic judicial rulings that recognized the violation. 168. The representatives considered that the arbitrary suspension of the pension payments, combined with the privatization of the Tintaya company and the failure to adopt measures of due diligence and safeguards to guarantee Mr. Muelle Flores’ right to a pension upon retirement, resulted in the violation of his right to social security. Likewise, they argued that the absence of clear and transparent rules concerning the entity that would be responsible for complying with the judgments, resulted in their non-execution. This failure to comply with the judgments deprived the victim of the right to lead a life with dignity, enjoy a healthy old age and cover his most basic necessities, such as food, housing and health care, in order to improve his quality of life and that of his family. The representatives indicated that, as a consequence of the suspension of his pension, Mr. Muelle Flores was unable to contribute to the social health insurance system, and therefore did not benefit from medical insurance and medical care on the same terms as other pensioners under Decree Law No. 20530. As a result, he incurred financial expenses in treating his health problems. The representatives also stated that, “it should not be forgotten that full respect for the guarantees of due legal process and judicial protection ultimately constitute the main support for the realization of and compliance with economic, social and cultural rights.” Finally, the representatives emphasized that the instant case “is of the utmost importance and interest since it seeks to ensure the effective protection of the rights of older persons, whose situation is characterized by a high level of social and economic vulnerability.” 169. Neither the Commission nor the State presented arguments regarding the alleged violation of Article 26 of the Convention. C.2 Considerations of the Court 170. The Court advises that in the instant case, the legal problem presented by the representatives is related to the scope of the right to social security, understood as an autonomous right derived from Article 26 of the American Convention. Thus, the arguments of the representatives follow the same approach adopted by this Court since the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru,174 which has been continued in subsequent decisions.175 In this regard, the Court recalls that in the case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile it stated the following: Thus, it may be clearly interpreted that the American Convention embodied in its catalogue of protected rights the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER) derived from the standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), and from Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, paras. 141–150 and 154. Cf. Environment and human rights (the State’s obligations in relation to the environment in the context of the protection and guarantee of the rights to life and to personal integrity- interpretation and scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017. Series A No. 23, para. 57; Case of Dismissed Employees of PetroPerú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 192; Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 220; Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 100, and Case of Cuscul et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 73. 174 175