to the civil rights that it declared violated – in the understanding that the right to health is one of the justiciable economic, social and cultural rights that are derived from Article 26 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations of Article 1(1) of the Pact of San José, as analyzed above. V. IN CONCLUSION: TOWARDS THE FULL JUSTICIABILITY OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS IN THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM 97. More than three decades after the entry into force of the American Convention, discussions continue on the nature and scope of the economic, social and cultural rights referred to in the only article included in its Chapter III: Article 26. It is my understanding that this article of the Convention needs to be interpreted in light of our times and in accordance with the relevant advances in international human rights law, and in constitutional law. Indeed, regarding the former, it is sufficient to indicate that a few days before the Judgment to which this separate opinion refers was handed down, the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force, 181 and this represents a real potential opening towards the justiciability of these rights under the universal system. 98. Furthermore, the progress made in the area of social rights within the States Parties to the Pact of San José is undeniable. The necessary evolutive interpretation of Article 26 of the American Convention must also be derived from the full recognition in many Constitutions of the protection of the right to health as a social right, which represents a regional trend. And this trend can also be appreciated in the evolution of the case law of the highest national jurisdictions granting effectiveness to this social right; at times even directly and not only in connection with civil and political rights. 99. In this individual opinion, I have tried to defend an interpretation that attempts to grant primacy to the normative value of Article 26 of the American Convention. It has been said – with some reason – that the Inter-American Court should not ignore the Protocol of San Salvador; 182 neither should it ignore Article 26 of the Pact of San José; it should interpret it in light of both instruments. In this understanding, the Additional Protocol is not able to reduce the normative value of the American Convention if this objective is not expressly stated in that instrument in relation to the obligations erga omnes established in Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention, general obligations that apply to all rights, even economic, social and cultural rights, as the Inter-American Court has explicitly recognized. 183 100. The evolutive interpretation referred to seeks to grant real efficacy to inter-American protection in this area, the effectiveness of which is minimal 25 years after the adoption of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and almost 15 years after its entry into force. And this calls for an interpretation addressed at establishing the greatest practical effects possible for 181 Resolution A/RES/63/117 adopted on 10 December 2008 by the UN General Assembly, which entered into force on May 5, 2013. Ecuador is one of the 10 countries that have ratified it. The signatories undertake to recognize the competence of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to examine communications from individuals or groups who affirm that there has been a violation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 182 Ruiz-Chiriboga, Oswaldo, op. cit. supra, note 39, p. 160. 183 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra, para. 100. 34