the case of the Juvenile Reeducation Institute v. Paraguay (2004),19 the Court chose to discuss the petitioners’ rights to health, education, and recreation in the framework of the rights to a life with dignity (Article 4) and protection of the child (Article 19). Even without mentioning article 26, the Court made its protection of ESCER clear: The examination of the state’s possible failure to comply with its obligations under Article 19 of the American Convention [“Rights of the Child”] should take into account that the measures of which this provision speaks go well beyond the sphere of strictly civil and political rights. The measures that the state must undertake, particularly given the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, encompass economic, social and cultural aspects that pertain, first and foremost, to the children’s right to life and right to humane treatment.20 21. The Court continued to use this technique of subsumption in its initial decades as a mechanism to protect ESCER,21 turning to it as a means of building a corpus iuris as a foundation for enhancing protection of these rights. It also served as a backdrop for arguments that would be essential to understanding the direct justiciability of ESCER. 22. A notable step forward was the case of Acevedo Buendía et al. v. Peru(2009),22 in which the representatives of the victims argued that the fact that the state did not make provisions for the payment of benefits to hundreds of dismissed employees violated their right to social security, a right provided for under article 26 of the Convention. The state tried to argue in a preliminary objection that the Court lacked material competence to apply the article. However, the Court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear violations of any provision of the Convention, including Article 26, in the Court's first explicit recognition of its competence to adjudicate violations of that article.23 23. In addition, the Court reinforced the interdependence between categories of rights by asserting the applicability of the general obligations of articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention to Article 26. Although the Court found the provision was not applicable to the case in question, it was an important step for sustained protection of ESCER to begin taking on the contours of direct justiciability. 24. The logical and natural continuity between the protection of ESCER by the Court carried out by way of connection and the eventual opening of direct justiciability is evidenced in the concurring opinion of Judge Macaulay in the case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina (2012).24 The following year, in his concurring opinion in the case Suárez Peralta vs. Ecuador (2013),25 Judge Mac-Gregor brilliantly set forth the Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112. 19 20 Ibidem, para. 149. According to section 17 of the opinion issued by Judge García Ramírez in the case of Acevedo Buendía v. Peru, which recognizes that the Court has examined issues that refer essentially to social rights via civil and political rights—in particular, those related to property, integrity, and the rights of children. Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, opinion of Judge García Ramírez, para. 17. 21 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198. 22 23 However, it is important to note that the recognition of its competence to declare violations of Article 26 of the Convention differs substantially from a recognition of direct justiciability of ESCER through this provision. Cf. Case of Furlán and Relatives v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246. 24 Cf. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261 25 5