total of 23 participating States, which hardly reflects a majority position in this regard. No mention was made of the countries that opposed the enforceability of ESCER or the fact that the majority of these countries did not express a clear position. 35. Based on a study of the preparatory works, there is no clear indication of the States’ intention to include economic, social, cultural and environmental rights in the protection system contemplated by the Convention. For example, opinions were proffered pointing out that the content of the article did not appear to be typical of a convention, “but that perhaps it [was] not politically convenient to oppose the inclusion of that text.”34 The Dominican Republic, in its intervention regarding Article 25(1) of the draft Convention, stressed that it was preferable to eliminate paragraph 1 proposing that the States dedicate their efforts to guarantee, in their domestic laws, the other rights enshrined in the American Declaration.35 Likewise, Chile emphasized that any direct mention of the ESCER had been eliminated;36 Mexico pointed out that “unlike all the other rights alluded to in the draft –which are rights enjoyed by a person as an individual or as a member of a particular social group – it is difficult at a given moment to precisely establish which person or persons would be directly affected in the event of a violation of the rights contained in Article 25.”37 The observations of Guatemala38 and Brazil39 were aimed at proposing articles in the context of the obligation of progressive development, or proposing that the States submit reports to the Commission on the measures adopted and the progress made in ensuring respect for ESCAR. In particular, Brazil emphasized that “economic, social and cultural rights are contemplated in very different degrees and forms by the legislation of the different American States and, although governments may wish to recognize them all, their enforcement depends substantially on the availability of material resources that enable their implementation.” 36. I would also point out that, based on the positions adopted by the States, the only consensus reached was to include the obligation of progressive development of rights, pursuant to Article 26 of the Convention; however, there was no proposal to include ESCER in the same system of protection contemplated for other civil and political rights, at least not from an individual standpoint. Accordingly, the interpretation made using the methods cited is confirmed in the preparatory works of the American Convention. 37. Despite my comments in this section, I am not unaware of the importance of the justiciability of ESCER and their protection through the inter-American system. However, to accomplish this we can turn to less problematic approaches in terms of interpretation, which are consistent with the jurisdiction granted to the Court by the States and with the stipulations of international law. Thus, as this Court has done on several occasions prior to its current jurisprudential stance, it can still protect ESCER in conjunction with other rights recognized in the Convention, in other words, through an indirect mechanism of protection. Cf. Uruguay. Records of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, November 7-22, 1969, OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, p. 37. 34 Cf. Dominican Republic. Records of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, November 7-22, 1969, OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, pp. 69 and 70. 36 Cf. Chile. Records of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, November 7-22, 1969, OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, pp. 42 and 43. 35 Cf. Mexico. Records of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, November 7-22, 1969, OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, p. 101. 37 Cf. Guatemala. Records of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, November 7-22, 1969, OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, pp. 115 and 116. 38 Cf. Brazil. Records of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, November 7-22, 1969, OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2, pp. 124 and 125. 39