Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities15 15. The processing of the case before the Court culminated in acknowledgment by the state of Costa Rica—during the public hearing held on March 24, 2022, and in its final arguments—of its international responsibility for the violation of the aforementioned articles of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Guevara Díaz, pursuant to the terms of the Report on the Merits of the Commission.16 This full acknowledgment of responsibility was welcomed by the Court as a valuable contribution to the processing of the case and to the validity of the principles inspiring the Convention.17 I would note that the state acknowledgment is extremely healthy and, in some sense, a part of reparations, to the extent that it embodies the respect for the victim’s feelings in the search for justice and protection. 16. Lastly, the Court reiterated its jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to Article 26 of the Convention and its applicability to cases on the right to work. It applied this right to this specific case, together with the right to equal protection (Article 24), and concluded that the petitioner had suffered discrimination in access to work and job security.18 17. Although the Court unanimously recognized the violation of Article 24 of the Convention, there was disagreement as to whether Article 26 had been violated. As I indicated in the preliminary considerations of this opinion, this respectful disagreement, with the potential to be projected forward into a series of future cases on ESCER, whether decided in terms of individual or collective rights violations, was the motivation for this concurring opinion. My view is that the direct justiciability of ESCER must be addressed from an approach that centers the coherence and integrity of the IAHRS. II. Direct justiciability of ESCER as an element of the IAHRS 18. The bringing of cases before this Court that either directly or indirectly have to do with ESCER has made it possible to progressively improve understanding of the scope of state obligations to respect, promote, and guarantee these rights, as well as set the parameters for analyzing state conduct that interferes with its area of protection. The development of the Court’s case law has led to valuable internal and external debates, with laudable positions taken by different actors seeking to add to the understanding of the best way to promote, protect, and monitor ESCER on the American continent. 19. Given the existence of a single article of a peculiar nature, the Court has had to exercise its hermeneutics within the possibilities of each era in which it has taken action. Even so, reconstructing the history of the case law surrounding the justiciability of ESCER enables us to observe that their protection has been central to the Court’s work since the beginning. 20. Interdependence with civil and political rights initially enabled the Court to address ESCER with regard to their relationship to the rights guaranteed in Chapter II of the Convention, including in cases where ESCER were central. For example, in Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. Case 12,861. Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Pg. 22 (folio. 82) 15 16 Final arguments of the state, pg. 13-19. 17 Judgment, para. 22. 18 Judgment, para. 82. 4