41. This interpretation by the Inter-American Court, adopted unanimously, 75 constitutes a fundamental precedent for the direct justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights, by stating that, when dealing with the rights that can be derived from Article 26, it is possible to apply the general obligations of respect, guarantee, and adaptation contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. Given that, in this case, the Inter-American Court did not rule on these interpretative implications in relation to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, I consider that the Judgment to which this separate opinion refers would have provided a significant opportunity to allude to this, because the Protocol of San Salvador, the OAS Charter, the American Declaration, and even Article 26 of the American Convention were used expressly to give content to the right to health (see supra para. 29). 76 42. Now, none of the articles of the Protocol of San Salvador make any reference to the scope of the general obligations referred to in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. If the Pact of San José is not being amended expressly, the corresponding interpretation should be the least restrictive as regards its scope. In this regard, it is important to stress that the American Convention itself establishes a specific procedure for its amendment. 77 If the Protocol of Salvador had been intended to annul or amend the scope of Article 26, this should have been established explicitly and unequivocally. The clear wording of Article 19(6) of the Protocol does not permit inferring any conclusion with regard to the literal meaning of the relationship between Article 26 and Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, as the Inter-American Court has recognized. 78 43. Differing positions have arisen with regard to the interpretation of Article 26 and its relationship with the Protocol of San Salvador. 79 In my opinion, the principle of the most 75 With separate opinions of Judge Sergio García Ramírez and Judge ad hoc Víctor Oscar Shiyin García Toma. 76 Also, see para. 131 and footnote 176 of the Judgment. 77 American Convention: “Article 76(1) Proposals to amend this Convention may be submitted to the General Assembly for the action it deems appropriate by any State Party directly, and by the Commission or the Court through the Secretary General.” 78 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra, para. 100. 79 Cf., in alphabetical order, among others, Abramovich, Víctor and Rossi, Julieta, “La tutela de los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales en el artículo 26 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos,” in Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, year/vol. 9, Special No., Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, 34-53; BurgorgueLarsen, Laurence, and Úbeda de Torres, Amaya, in particular Chapter 24 written by the first author: “Economic and social rights,” The Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case Law and Commentary, New York, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 613-639; Cavallaro, James L. and Brewer, Stephanie Erin “La función del litigio interamericano en la promoción de la justicia social,” in Sur. Revista Internacional de Derechos Humanos, No. 8, 2008, pp. 85- 99; Cavallaro, James L. and Schaffer, Emily, “Less as More: rethinking Supranational Litigation of Economic and Social Rights in the Americas,” in Hastings Law Journal, No. 56, No. 2, 2004, pp. 217-281; Cavallaro, James and Schaffer, Emily, “Rejoinder: Finding Common Ground to Promote Social Justice and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Americas,” in New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, No. 39, 2006, pp. 345-383; Courtis, Christian, “La protección de los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales a través del artículo 26 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos” in Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor and Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea (coords.), La ciencia del derecho procesal constitucional. Estudios en homenaje a Héctor Fix-Zamudio en sus cincuenta años como investigador del derecho, Mexico, UNAM-Marcial Pons-IMDPC, 2008, volume IX: “Derechos humanos y tribunales internacionales,” pp. 361-438; Melish, Tara J., La Protección de los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales en el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, Quito, CDES, Yale Law School, 2003, pp. 379-392; by the same author: “Rethinking the “Less as More” Thesis: Supranational Litigation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Americas,” in New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, No. 39, 2006, pp. 171-343; by the same autor: “Counter-Rejoinder. Justice vs. justiciability?: Normative Neutrality and Technical Precision, The Role of the Lawyer in Supranational Social Rights Litigation,” in New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, No. 39, 2006, pp. 385-415; Parra Vera, Oscar, Justiciabilidad de los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales ante el Sistema Interamericano, Mexico, CNDH, 2011; Pelayo Moller, Carlos María. El “mínimo vital” como estándar para la justiciabilidad de los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales. Revista Metodhos, Federal District Human Rights 15