44 138. In addition, the Court notes that both the 1979 and the 1993 Constitution of Peru, and labor laws at the time of the facts, explicitly recognized the right to job security, 185 as follows: 1979 Constitution. Article 48. “The State recognizes the right to job security. The employee may only be dismissed for just cause, established by law and duly proven.” 139. Consequently, this Court has competence – in light of the American Convention and based on the iura novit curia principle, which is firmly supported by international jurisprudence 186 – to examine the possible violation of articles of the Convention that have not been alleged in the briefs submitted to it, in the understanding that the parties have had the opportunity to express their respective positions in relation to the facts that substantiate them, and as it has on numerous occasions.187 140. Therefore, for the purposes of this case, in light of Article 29 of the American Convention,188 the Court will now examine the scope of the right to job security pursuant to Article 26 of the American Convention. 2.2 The right to job security as a protected right 141. The Court has repeatedly maintained the interdependence and indivisibility of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, because they should all be understood integrally as human rights, without any specific hierarchy, and be enforceable in all cases before the competent authorities.189 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Constitution of Peru of July 12, 1979. Article 48: “The State recognizes the right to job security. […]”; Congress of the Republic of Peru. Constitution of Peru of December 29, 1993. Article 22: “Work is a duty and a right. It is the basis of social well-being and a means for self-realization” and in article 27: “[t]he law accords the worker adequate protection against arbitrary dismissal,” and Congress of the Republic of Peru. Law No. 24514. Article 2: “This law protects workers in the private sector or in public companies subject to the private sector regime […].” 185 Cf. PCIJ, Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey). Judgment No. 9, September 7, 1927. Series A; PCIJ, Case relating to the Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder (United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden v. Poland). Judgment No. 23, September 10, 1929. Series A; PCIJ, Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savor and the District of Gex (France v. Switzerland). Judgment No. 46, June 7, 1932. Series A/B; ECHR, Case of Guerra and Others v. Italy. No. 14967/89. Judgment of February 19, 1998, para. 45. See also: ECHR, Case of Handyside v. The United Kingdom. No. 5493/72. Judgment of December 7, 1976, para. 41, and ECHR, Case of Philis v. Greece. Nos. 12750/87, 13780/88 and 14003/88. Judgment of August 27, 1991, para. 56. 186 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 163, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 189. 187 Cf. In this regard, Article 29(b) and (d) of the Convention establish that: “[n]o provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: […] b) restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party; […] d) excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have.” Thus, pursuant to the said Article 29, labor rights, such as the right to job security recognized in the 1979 and 1993 Constitutions of Peru, should incorporate, for the purposes of this case, the interpretation and scope of the right protected in Article 26 of the American Convention. Cf. Compulsory Membership of an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985, Series A No. 5, para. 44. 188 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009 Series C No. 198, para. 101; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment 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, and Preamble to the American Convention. Similarly: Cf. UN. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 9, E/C.12/1998/24, December 3, 1998, para. 10. See also: ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, No. 6289/73. Judgment of October 9, 1979, para. 26, and Case of Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, Nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00. Judgment of July 27, 2004, para. 47. In the Case of Airey v. Ireland, the European Court indicated that “[w]hilst the Convention sets forth what are essentially civil and political rights, many of them have implications of a social or economic nature. The Court therefore considers, like the Commission, that the mere fact that an interpretation of the Convention may extend into the sphere of social and economic rights should not be a decisive factor against such an interpretation; there is no water-tight division separating that sphere 189