Ecuador,10 Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile,11 Casa Nina v. Peru12 and Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile13 in relation to justiciability of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the ACHR)”. 2. I have been consistent in maintaining that the direct justiciability of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (hereinafter “the ESCER”) through Article 26 of the American Convention suffers from numerous logical and legal inconsistencies. Among others, this position taken in the Court’s case law disregards the literal meaning of the American Convention;14 ignores the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties;15 changes the nature of the obligation of progressivity;16 ignores the intention of the States contained in Article 19 of the Protocol of San Salvador17 and undermines the Court’s legitimacy in the regional sphere.18 All the foregoing prevents me from voting in favor of the declaration of the responsibility of a State founded on the direct and autonomous violation of the ESCER through Article 26 of the Convention. 3. In this regard, I have indicated19 the difficulties that result from the practice adopted by the Court to assemble in a single operative paragraph all, or an important group, of the violation of the Convention-based obligations, reducing the ability of the judges to express their discrepancy in relation to the justiciability of the ESCER. It is this reasoning that underlines my separate opinion because, although I am in agreement with the fact that the Court has declared the violation of Articles 4, 5, 11 and 24 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, as well as the obligations under Article 7(a) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, because it is evident that the Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 10 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 11 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419. Concurring and partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 12 Cf. Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 1313 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 14 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 15 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 16 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 17 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 18 Cf. Case of the 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. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 6; Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 17; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 7, and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto para. 6. 19 2