under Article 26 of the American Convention. The Court recalls that the right to work has been recognized and protected through Article 26 of the Convention in different precedents.98 128. In this regard, this Court has established that a literal, systematic, teleological, and evolutionary interpretation of the scope of its jurisdiction leads to the conclusion that Article 26 of the American Convention protects those rights that derive from the economic, social and educational, scientific and cultural norms contained in the Charter of the Organization of American States (hereinafter "OAS Charter"). Likewise, it has recognized that the scope of these rights must be understood in relation to the other clauses of the American Convention, and therefore, they are subject to the general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention and may be subject to supervision by this Court in terms of Articles 62 and 63 of the same instrument. This conclusion is based not only on formal considerations but also on the interdependence and indivisibility of civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights,99 as well as their compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is the protection of the fundamental rights of human beings. To this effect, the Court has established that, in each specific case in which an analysis of the ESCER is required, the Court must determine whether a human right protected by Article 26 of the American Convention is derived from the OAS Charter, as well as the scope of this protection.”100 Cf.., inter alia, 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 – 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 145; Case of Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, paras. 142 and 143; Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 220; Caso 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 objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 75-97; 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; 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, paras. 33 to 34; Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 62; Case of Indigenous Communities of Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C No. 400, para. 195; Case of Spoltore v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 9, 2020. Series C No. 404, para. 84; 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. 155; 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. 76 to 78; Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 1, 2021. Series C No. 439, paras. 32 – 35; Case of Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 6, 2021. Series C No. 440, para. 118; Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 182; Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 132 and 133; Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446, para. 153; Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of February 1, 2022. Series C No. 448, paras. 109 and 111; Caso Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 87, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 453, paras. 55 – 61. 99 The Court has "reiterated the interdependence and indivisibility between civil and political rights, and economic, social, and cultural rights, as they must be understood holistically and comprehensively as human rights, without hierarchy among themselves and enforceable in all cases before the competent authorities." Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 141. 100 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 75-97; Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru, supra, para. 34, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 33, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 56. 98