102 declared that the conventional inter-American rule could not be applied since it was not of constitutional hierarchy, thus placing international human rights treaties on a second category level. There was also non compliance with the rule under Article 1(1), since there was no reparation to the 270 workers for being arbitrarily dismissed; and b) In ignoring that the observance of the Convention is mandatory, the Supreme Court neglected its duty as the maximum jurisdictional body of a State, to comply and ensure compliance with said treaty, as well as the duty to adjust its judicial decisions to the rules of domestic law and those of the Convention. Arguments of the State 175. For its part, the State expressed that it did everything within its power to ensure and observe the rights enshrined in the Convention, for which reason it did not violate Article 1(1) thereof. * * * Considerations of the Court 176. Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes that [t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 177. For its part, Article 2 of the Convention determines that where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 178. The Court has established that [a]rticle 1(1) is essential in determining whether a violation of the human rights recognized by the Convention can be imputed to a State Party. In effect, that article charges the States Parties with the fundamental duty to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. Any impairment of those rights which can be attributed under the rules of international law to the action or omission of any public authority constitutes an act imputable to the State, which assumes responsibility in the terms provided by the Convention. According to Article 1(1), any exercise of public power that violates the rights recognized by the Convention is illegal. Whenever a State organ, official or public entity violates one of those rights, this constitutes a failure of the duty to respect the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. This conclusion is independent of whether the organ or official has contravened provisions of internal law or overstepped the limits of his authority. under international