modality, which prevents expressing disagreement exclusively with the direct justiciability of ESCER, weakens the legal thrust of the decision against the main violation. My point is that, as a consequence of grouping together the violation of the right to work and the prohibition of discrimination, the decision was not made unanimously, despite the fact that all the judges of the Court agree that Costa Rica is responsible internationally for preventing Mr. Guevara Díaz from accessing the position of miscellaneous worker due to his disability. 11. Indeed, although operative paragraph 2—covering violations of articles 24 and 26, read in conjunction with Article 1(1)—is declared unanimously, it is stated that “Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissent with regard to violation of article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1(1), as expressed in their opinions.” Thus, while my disagreement and that of Judge Pérez are noted, the focus of the judgment is lost, when the appropriate thing to do would be to allow the Court to vote separately on the violation of Article 26, making clear the full consensus on the other violations. 12. I insist that the Court must not lose its focus on identifying and establishing legal consequences for State conduct that generates breaches of obligations under the Convention: In this case, that is, the actions of State agents that prevented Mr. Guevara Díaz from accessing public office due to his disability. This must be made clear as an expression of the will of the Court. and the fact that there may be disagreements regarding accessory elements of the decision must be handled separately and tangentially. Although it is true that human rights are interdependent and indivisible, when justifying its decision, the Court must analyze the factual circumstances and the obligatory contents related directly to the core of the main violation of the case, not examine the entire text of the Convention and other international instruments that may have an indirect or eventual relationship with the case. This is what makes it possible to give rigor, certainty, and clarity to interAmerican standards and thereby guarantee further their validity in domestic law through review of compliance with human rights conventions. Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Registrar 5