16 do not share the decisions taken because permitting the provisions of the said Article 26 to be judicialized before the Court not only renders meaningless the provisions of Articles 31, 76(1) and 77(1) of the Convention and of the Protocol of San Salvador, but would also allow this for all the rights derived from the OAS Charter, an eventuality that is evidently totally alien to what was intended. Based on the foregoing, I reiterate that I am not denying the existence of the right to job security which, incidentally, does not appear as such in the OAS Charter from the provisions of which it would derive according to Article 26 of the Convention. I merely indicate that its eventual violation cannot be submitted to the consideration and decision of the Court. Furthermore, this opinion should not be understood to signify that I would not be in favor of the eventual judicialization of the economic, social and cultural rights. I merely consider that, if this occurs, it should be accomplished by the entity responsible for setting international legal standards; namely, the States, through treaties, international custom, general principles of law, or unilateral legal acts. It does not appear desirable that the organ responsible for the interAmerican judicial function should assume the role of setting international standards, particularly when the States Parties to the Convention are democratic and, in this regard, governed by the Inter-American Democratic Charter that establishes the separation of powers and civic participation in public affairs,76 which should also be reflected in matters relating to the role of setting international legal standards, particularly those standards that concern them most directly. Finally, this opinion records my discrepancy with the fact that the judgment develops and expresses, for the first time, “a specific condemnation for the violation of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, established in Chapter III of this treaty, entitled Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.”77 And this is so, also, based not only on the negative consequences that this decision could have, but also because it appears that it does not to take into consideration the circumstance that the sphere of the domestic jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction that is exclusive to the State 78 - also known as the margin of discretion79 – still exists, although to a lesser extent than in the past. And this shows that not everything is regulated by international law, and in the case of the Convention, it is expressed, inter alia, both in the provision that establishes that it is the State Party in the 76 Adopted at the twenty-eighth OAS General Assembly on September 11, 2001, Lima, Peru. “Art. 3: Essential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government. Art. 6: It is the right and responsibility of all citizens to participate in decisions relating to their own development. This is also a necessary condition for the full and effective exercise of democracy. Promoting and fostering diverse forms of participation strengthens democracy.” 77 Para. 154. “The question whether a certain matter is or is not solely within the jurisdiction of a State is an essentially relative question; it depends upon the development of international relations. Thus, in the present state of international law, questions of nationality are, in the opinion of the Court, in principle within this reserved domain.” Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion on Nationality Decrees issued in Tunisia and Morocco (French zone), Series B No. 4, p.24. 78 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, “Art.1: At the end of the preamble to the Convention, a new recital shall be added, which shall read as follows: “Affirming that the High Contracting Parties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, have the primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms defined in this Convention and the Protocols thereto, and that in doing so they enjoy a margin of appreciation, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights established by this Convention.” 79