31 VII ARTICLE 26 (PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL 79 RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 92. The representative further asserted that "the failure to pay the pensions accrued from April 1993 to October 2002 […] also constitutes a violation of the right to social security as enshrined in Article 26 of the Convention, which contains a provision that refers to economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural rules contained in the OAS Charter”. Hence, according to the representative, “ the general obligation to respect and guarantee, as well as the adaptation of domestic law, that apply with regard to all civil and political rights […], also apply with regard to the economic, social, and cultural rights.” 93. In that same line of thought, the representative indicated that “[t]he right to an [adjustable] pension, which the [victims] acquired, as well as its conditions, form part of the right to social security” which was specifically protected by the ruling of the Constitutional Court of October 21, 1997. Therefore, “the failure to comply with the judicial rulings [in] this case does not only entail a violation of the right to effective judicial protection but it also implies a direct violation of the right to social security […] fully actionable at this judicial venue". 94. In this way, the representatives emphasized that “by adopting and applying Decrees No.] 25597 and 036-93-EF the State violated the duty of progressive development imposed upon it within the framework of the implementation of the human right to social security” pursuant to Article 10 of the Peruvian Constitution, according to which “the State acknowledges all people their universal and progressive right to social security, to protect them against all legal contingencies and to improve their quality of life”. The representatives further asserted that “as of April 1993 to October 2002, [the State] made a step backwards in the level of protection of that right as afforded to each one of the victims, to whom the State withheld nine-tenths of the amount that they should have received, violating their right to social security “. "[Said] step backwards was unjustified, insofar as the State did not allege or prove, at any moment, that it had implemented the seizure of pensions in order to preserve the general welfare within the democratic society”. 95. The Commission did not allege the violation of Article 26 of the American Convention. 96. Moreover, the State presented its position in this regard by means of a preliminary objection (supra para. 12) pointing out that, “if the rights allegedly violated by the Peruvian State are pension rights, […] “we would be in a situation that exceeds the competence of the […] [Inter-American] Court”. 97. The Court considers it is appropriate to recall the terms indicated in chapter III of this Judgment, in the sense that the Tribunal is fully competent to analyze the violations of all the rights enshrined in the American Convention (supra para. 16). Moreover, even though the Commission did not allege the 79 Article 26 of the Convention (Progressive Development) establishes that: 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.