45. The State claimed that Article 26 of the American Convention and Articles 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Salvador were wrongfully included in the Merits Report. It argued that the Court cannot analyze alleged violations of economic, social and cultural rights and it requested that the Court prudently exercise its competences and attributions under the Convention. It also claimed that the representatives referred, in their pleadings and motions brief, to issues that were not claimed domestically nor are found in the factual framework of the Merits Report; in particular, issues of work stability, remuneration, time of service required for a pension, social security and health, adequate food, water, sanitation, clothing, housing and medical care. 46. The Commission pointed out that the organs of the inter-American system have repeatedly held that they have jurisdiction to analyze a possible violation of Article 26. Moreover, it indicated that the State’s argument is based on a showing that it is not responsible for the alleged violation, which should be resolved with the merits. Consequently, it asked the Court to reject the State’s position on the lack of jurisdiction. 47. The representatives recalled that in Acevedo Buendía et al. (Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller) v. Peru case, the Court held that it has jurisdiction to analyze alleged violations of all the rights recognized in the Convention, including those set out in Article 26, and recalled that this decision has been reiterated in subsequent judgments. They pointed out that Article 26 establishes obligations in the area of economic, social and cultural rights that Peru did not respect with regard to the alleged victims and claimed that the references to the various elements of the right to work sought to clarify and explain aspects that enrich the analysis of the case and its implications on the rights protected by Article 26. E.2 Considerations of the Court 48. As to the State’s argument that the Court cannot analyze violations of the right to work included in Article 26 because it lacks material jurisdiction regarding that right, the Court reaffirms its jurisdiction to hear and resolve controversies concerning that article as an integral part of the rights enumerated in the text of the Convention, with respect to which Article 1(1) confers obligations of respect and guarantee.26 As has been indicated in prior Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, paras. 97 to 103; Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, paras. 142 and 154; Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 192; Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 220; Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 100; Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 75 to 97; Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, paras. 34 to 37; National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, paras 33 to 34; Case of Hernandez v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para 62; Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Serie C No. 400, para 195, Case of Spoltore v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 9, 2020. Series C No. 404, para. 85; Case of the Employees of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 23; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, paras. 26 and 27; Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, para. 97; Case of the Buzos Miskitos (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras. Judgment of August 31, 2021. Series C No. 432, paras. 62 to 66; Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 26 14