important normative instrument, which ultimately assists the regional courts with respect to human rights protection. 137. In particular, I would highlight, the precedent issued by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2019 in the context of an individual petition, namely the decision in the case of V.F.C. v. Spain.83 138. Like the case of Mr. Guevara Díaz, this case concerned the dismissal of a public servant, a member of the local police, who suffered permanent motor disability as a result of a traffic accident. When he was dismissed, he was not offered the possibility of being reassigned to a position appropriate to his disability. 139. Taking this factual framework into account, the Committee found that the author's right to work had been violated in the context of discrimination with regard to his continued employment. On that occasion, therefore, there was the additional element of the need for reassignment. 140. In the case of Mr. Guevara Díaz, the factual framework is even simpler, given that the position to which he aspired through the competitive public hiring process was already clearly appropriate to his condition (and performed satisfactorily by him, without any impact on his performance related to his specific disability) and did not worsen between the period during which he held the position on an interim basis and the period in which he qualified for the permanent position. 141. In summary, the analysis of the specific contours of the case, approached from whatever perspective, leads to the logical conclusion that the victim’s right to work and right to participate in government were violated by Costa Rica, which was magnanimous enough to acknowledge the inadequacy of its behavior under the Convention, thus publicly repudiating its actions. V. Conclusion 142. Based on the foregoing, I believe that in order to ensure reparation for the violations suffered by Mr. Guevara is complete in light of the comprehensive protection conferred by the Convention, the Court must find that Costa Rica has violated not only the right to equality general, but also the right to work of a victim with a disability who is deserving of special public inclusion policies, as well as his right to equal participation in government. The state failed by arbitrarily treating his disability as a characteristic detrimental to his ability to perform a public service job accessible to all. 143. Beyond the result of the specific case, this concurring opinion seeks to demonstrate that the immediate justiciability of ESCER, in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention, has been set forth unequivocally in the case law of the Court for decades and ensures the indivisibility of human rights, the comprehensive protection of victims, and the continental projection of a transnational discourse on the protection of rights with the internal jurisdictions of the states, in a uniform language shared by an open inter-American society of interpreters of the Convention, whose hermeneutic contributions cannot be ignored. 144. Arguments contrary to this understanding have been duly considered by the Court in recent decades and rejected. The imperatives of case law coherence and integrity—which should be viewed as a chain novel by the judges of this Court, from Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. CRDP/C/21/D/34/2015. Decision of April 29, 2019. 83 25