indivisibility” was expressly acknowledged with particular emphasis in relation to the right to health in the Judgment that gives rise to this separate opinion, 2 and this entails a series of significant consequences, including that of accepting that human rights do not have a hierarchy, and civil and political rights are justiciable directly, as are economic, social and cultural rights. 5. Based on the premise that the Inter-American Court has full competence to analyze violations of all the rights recognized in the American Convention, including those relating to Article 26, 3 which include the right to the progressive development of economic, social and cultural rights, which includes the right to health – as recognized in the Judgment that gives rise to this separate opinion 4 — I consider that, in this case, this social right should have been analyzed directly, based on the competence that I understand this Inter-American Court to have to rule on a possible violation of the guarantee of economic, social and cultural rights, especially the right to health. 6. Indeed, the competence of the Inter-American Court to examine the right to health is found directly in Article 26 (Progressive Development) 5 of the Pact of San José (using different interpretative mechanisms (infra paras. 33 to 72), in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) 6 and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects), 7 as well as to Article 29 (Restrictions regarding Interpretation) 8 of the American Convention itself. In addition, 2 See paragraph 131 of the Judgment, which indicates textually that: “The Court also finds it pertinent to recall the interdependence and indivisibility of civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights, because they must be understood integrally as human rights without any specific ranking between them, and as rights that can be required in all cases before those authorities with the relevant competence”; the foregoing following the precedent of the Inter-American Court in the Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009 Series C No. 198, para. 101. 3 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra, para. 16: “the Court has asserted on other occasions, that the broad terms in which the Convention is written indicate that the Court has full jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to its articles and provisions,” and thus it decided to examine the merits of the matter by rejecting the first preliminary objection filed by the State, precisely with regard to the Inter-American Court’s supposed lack of competence with regard to Article 26 of the American Convention. 4 Cf. para. 131 of the Judgment, which refers to the OAS Charter and in footnote 169 establishes: “Article 26 of the American Convention (Pact of San José) refers to the progressive development, “by legislation or other appropriate means, and in keeping with the available resources […] of the rights implicit in the economic [and] social, standards set forth in the Charter of the [OAS].” The right to health is included in this reference (underlining added). 5 “Article 26. Progressive Development. The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights implicit in 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.” 6 “Article 1. Obligation to Respect Rights. The 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.” 7 “Article 2. Domestic Legal Effects. 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.” 8 American Convention: “Article 29. Restrictions regarding Interpretation. No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: (a) permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein; (b) restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party; (c) precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government, or (d) 2