State, with a degree of discretion and according to participatory mechanisms, has adopted for realizing the rights contained in the Protocol. It will be necessary, however, to determine if those public policies ensure fulfillment of their positive obligations -whether immediate or progressive- under the Protocol. 52 6. The progress indicators unquestionably serve as a tool, first for assessing the degree of compliance (whether progress or setbacks) of the States from a general perspective, and second, to do so with a particular focus on certain rights. The WGPSS does this by adopting as its focal point the principles of progressivity (and therefore, the obligation of non-regressivity) of economic, social and cultural rights, such that any weakening or worsening in the levels of protection of these rights, without suitable justification, would entail unauthorized regression under the Protocol of San Salvador. 53 D. Analysis of the instant case 1. The first part of this opinion explained that, although neither the Commission nor the representatives of the victim had argued violation of Article 26 of the Convention, the Court majority held that it had been breached, so declaring under the principle of iura novit curia. 2. Specifically, the judgment says that in order to examine this violation, the Court would “need to consider whether these violations occurred simultaneously with the other violations [already] discussed,” adding that the “Court has understood that civil and political rights, as well as economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, are indivisible, and the recognition and enjoyment thereof must inevitably be guided by the principles of universality, indivisibility, interdependence, and interrelationship.” 54 It goes on to say that both “categories of rights must be understood integrally and jointly as human rights, without any specific hierarchy, and be enforceable in all cases before the competent authorities.” This presents two logical difficulties. 3. The first is that it associates a case of simultaneous violation of rights in both categories with the indivisible nature of the two classes of rights. In other words, in this case it is being held that the right set forth in Article 23(1)(c) has been violated, that the right to work was breached at the same time, and that this points to the fact that civil and political rights are inseparable from economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCERs). It is of course true that a single act can violate more than one of the rights recognized in the Convention, but in the instant case, even though only one sphere of protection has been breached (the right to remain in a job under conditions of equality), the judgment declares violation not only of the provision applicable to the facts under analysis (Article 23(1)(c)), but also, in a strained act of interpretation of the Convention (which distorts the text) it also finds that Article 26 has been violated. 4. The second problem is that it is one thing to affirm that there is no hierarchy among rights in the two categories (a correct statement with which I agree), but quite another to hold that they are both equally enforceable before this Court. The one does not follow logically from the other. 5. As I also stated in separate opinions on the cases Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, Cf. Progress indicators for measuring rights under the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2, December 16, 2011, para. 23. 53 Cf. Progress indicators for measuring rights under the Protocol of San Salvador. OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1 and GT/PSS/doc.2/11 rev.2, December 16, 2011, para. 24. 54 Cf. Paragraph 95. 52