et al. v. Ecuador; 9 as well as my concurring opinions in Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, 10 Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, 11 Casa Nina v. Peru, 12 Buzos Miskitos v. Honduras, 13 Vera Rojas v. Chile, 14 Manuela v. El Salvador, 15 Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala 16 with respect to the justiciability of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”). 2. The judgment reiterates the position first articulated in Lagos del Campo v. Peru, regarding the direct and autonomous justiciability of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (hereinafter “ESCER”). I must insist in the arguments that demonstrate a lack of a juridical basis for this theory in the context of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. 17 What I wish to make manifest at this time is the practical irrelevance of declaring the responsibility of the State for violating the right to work by invoking Article 26 of the Convention in the specific case. 3. The Court held that there was a violation of a reasonable time regarding 4,091 former maritime, port and river workers, the beneficiaries of a decision on a writ of amparo by the Supreme Court of the Republic because the order to calculate an increase in their wages was not implemented for more than 20 years. Moreover, the Court declared the international responsibility of Peru regarding Articles 8(1), 21, 25(1), 25(2)(c) and 26 of the Convention because, at the time of the judgment, the State had not proceeded with the payments owed to the sub-group of 2,317 former workers who claimed additional amounts. In specifically referring to the right to work, the Court stated that “[…] the sub-group of 2,317 maritime and port workers were deprived of their right to the integral payment of their wages, as was determined domestically and has been explained supra. This had an impact on their right to work and to receive a fair and previously agreed upon wage. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the State also violated the right to work of the 2,317 victims identified in Annex II.” 18 I do not agree with this statement because I consider that it is superficial and that it has no effect on the decision. 4. I am also of the opinion that the rationale behind the declaration of the violation of the right to work was the same that appears in paragraphs 94 and 95 regarding the right to Cf. Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 9 Cf. Caso Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 10 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 11 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419. Concurring and partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 12 13 Cf. Case of the Buzos Miskitos (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras. Judgment of August 31, 2021. Series C No. 432. 14 Cf. Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 1, 2021. Series C No. 439. Cf. Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441. 15 Cf. Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445. 16 17 It ignores the scope of Article 26 as governed by the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (literal, systematic and teleological); modifies the nature of the obligation of progressivity established with absolute clarity in Article 26; ignores the will of the States set forth in Article 19 of the Protocol of El Salvador and undermines the legitimacy of the Court in the region, to mention only a few of the arguments. 18 Cf. Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Judgment of February 1, 2022, para. 109. 2