the Convention or, at least, from the logic implicit in it, especially, due to the way in which the said Chapter VII was drafted. 81. This is particularly evident, for example, as regards the “[a]ccelerated and diversified industrialization, especially of capital and intermediate goods,” the “[s]tability of domestic price levels, compatible with sustained economic development and the attainment of social justice,” the “[p]romotion of private initiative and investment in harmony with action in the public sector,” the “[e]xpansion and diversification of exports, “[t]he operation of systems of public administration, banking and credit, enterprise, and distribution and sales, in such a way, in harmony with the private sector, as to meet the requirements and interests of the community,” and the facilitation of “the process of Latin American regional integration.” It is, at the very least, questionable that, on the basis of these assertions, the Court has wanted to derive human rights relating to these issues which, anyway, are part of the State’s internal, domestic and exclusive jurisdiction.90 82. Therefore, based on all the foregoing, it is evident that, contrary to what is indicated in the instant case, “the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires” to which Article 26 refers do not signify the competence of the Court to hear and decide possible violations of the rights “derived” from them. V. THE PROTOCOL OF SAN SALVADOR 83. Furthermore, it is necessary to refer to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), which is also cited in the Court’s case law to support its interpretation of Article 26;91 however, to the contrary, the undersigned considers that its signature and validity support what is maintained in this opinion. 84. This instrument92 was adopted as a result of the provisions of Articles 31, 76 and 7793 of the Convention, and this is indicated in its Preamble which indicates that: “Bearing in mind that, although fundamental economic, social and cultural rights have been recognized in earlier international instruments of both world and regional scope, it is essential that those rights be reaffirmed, developed, perfected and protected in order to consolidate in America, on the basis of full respect for the rights of the individual, the democratic representative form of government as well as the right of its peoples to development, self-determination, and the free disposal of their wealth and natural resources; and [c]onsidering that the American Convention on Human Rights provides that draft additional protocols to that Convention may be submitted for consideration to the States Parties, meeting together on the occasion of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, for the purpose of gradually incorporating other rights and freedoms into the protective system thereof.” 85. The above reveals that this is an agreement additional to the Convention, whose specific purpose is to reaffirm, develop, perfect and protect the economic, social and cultural 90 Supra, footnote 23. Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 161. 91 92 Hereinafter, the Protocol. 93 Supra, footnote 25. 22