considers an adequate methodology of analysis that takes account of the text of the provision but interprets it in a manner consistent with developments seen in this area at the international level that are highly useful for unraveling its scope and content. 240. Thus, the Commission considers that any analysis of a specific case in the light of Article 26 of the American Convention should be done on two levels. First, it is necessary to establish if the right with which the case is concerned derives from “the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States” to which Article 26 refers. In other words, Article 26 of the American Convention recognizes the Charter of the OAS as a direct source of rights and ascribes the Charter’s provisions in that regard the character of human rights. Given that the purpose of the Charter of the OAS was not to identify individual rights, but to establish an international organization, auxiliary texts must be relied on to identify the rights that arise from the provisions contained in that instrument. 241. Having established that, it must then be determined whether the State breached the obligation in terms of “progressively achieving” the full realization of that right or the general obligations to respect and ensure it. On this second level of analysis, it is necessary to consider the nature and scope of the obligations enforceable upon the State under Articles 1(1), 2, and 26 of the Convention, as well as the content of the right concerned, as is done hereinbelow. 242. Insofar as it is the provision that sets out the parameters of the general rules of interpretation of the American Convention, Article 29 of the Convention is important for establishing the criteria by which to derive specific rights from the OAS Charter, as well as to determine their content and the obligations of States in relation thereto. Thus, according to that Article, no provision of the Convention shall be interpreted as restricting or suppressing rights recognized by the domestic laws of the States or by any other treaty to which one of said States is a party, or as excluding the effects that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have. The provision thus recognizes the pro persona principle in the inter-American system and offers a key tool for effective protection of all human rights recognized both in the constitutions of the states parties, and in the inter-American and universal human rights instruments that they have ratified. 243. Based on a holistic interpretation, which Article 26 requires in light of the provisions contained in article 29, the Commission considers it relevant to refer to the obligations that emerge from Article 26 of the American convention and may be the subject of pronouncements on the part of the organs of the interAmerican system in the framework of contentious cases. In that regard, in the instant case, the Commission considers that the interpretation of Article 26 of the American convention should take into account the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ("Protocol Of San Salvador”),331 since it allows the scope of the State's obligation to be determined with respect to the progressive realization of the right under examination. Article 1 of the Protocol provides that the States Parties undertake to adopt the necessary measures, to the extent allowed by their available resources and taking into account their degree of development, for the purpose of achieving progressively the full observance of the rights recognized in the Protocol.332 244. For its part, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights333 contains at 334 its Article 2(1) similar provisions to Article 26 of the American Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol of San Salvador. The Commission has previously relied on the observations of the Committee on Economic, Social The Brazilian state acceded to the Protocol on August 21, 1996. IACHR, Report No. 38/09, Case 12.670, Admissibility and Merits, National Association of Ex-Employees of the Peruvian Social Security Institute et al., Peru, March 27, 2009. par. 134. 333 The State acceded to the that treaty on February 17, 1981. 334 According to that provision, “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures." 331 332 42