5 Cultural Rights.” This understanding is in keeping with the object and purpose of the treaty, which is the protection of human rights. 22. Thus, Article 26 is not merely a programmatic norm for the States Parties to the American Convention; rather it is a provision that imposes on the Inter-American Court the duty to derive rights from the articles of the OAS Charter, which in this specific case contain rights of an economic, social or cultural nature and not mere objectives. […]. 23. Second, and continuing the preceding argument, it cannot be overlooked that Article 26 of the American Convention expressly indicates that the rights are derived from the pertinent articles of the OAS Charter.23 The literal meaning is clear:24 the article does not indicate that, in order to clarify which “rights” Article 26 refers to, it is necessary to identify those rights that are expressly recognized as such in the OAS Charter; to the contrary, this provision indicates – as the main provision of Article 26 – that there are rights that derive from certain articles of the Charter: “the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural norms.” 24. According to the dictionary of the Real Academia Española, the pertinent meaning of “derivar,” is: “[d]icho de una cosa: Traer su origen de otra[; d]icho de una palabra: Proceder de cierta base léxica[, y] establecer una relación morfológica o etimológica entre dos voces.”25 [Derive: said of a thing: originate from something else; said of a word: proceed from a specific lexical basis, and establish a morphological or etymological relationship between two words.] 25. Therefore, the understanding of the rights referred in Article 26 of the American Convention should not be restricted merely to those rights that can be found literally as such – as the “right to work” could be understood26— in the text of the OAS Charter. To the contrary, a “derivation” should be made from the corresponding articles mentioned previously: “proceed from a specific lexical basis” to find a right. The text of Article 26, which refers to “rights” derived from “the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter,” obligates the interpreter, who cannot disregard the said text and validly maintain that the norms corresponding to the OAS Charter do not offer sufficient grounds to “derive” rights, because this is ordered by the text of the Convention. This does not preclude the admissibility of methods of interpretation that entail taking other norms into consideration, including the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador”;27 I have referred to this on other occasions. 26. The foregoing reveals that the Inter-American Court must make an evolutive and dynamic interpretation and that even though evidently interpretive difficulties exist owing to the way in which the American Convention has established the economic, social and cultural rights that it contains, this is not a difficulty that the interpretive and hermeneutic effort cannot overcome. Precisely, it is the function of the Inter-American Court to interpret the American Convention, without excusing itself based on the obscurity, vagueness or ambiguity of the terms of the treaty, and taking into consideration the pro persona principle contained in Article 29 of the Pact of San José. 11. The second relevant aspect relates to Advisory Opinion No. 10 — on the interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the framework of Article 64 of the American Convention28 — which the Inter-American Court used when delivering its judgment. Adopted on April 30, 1948. Entered into force, December 13, 1951. Amended by the Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States “Protocol of Buenos Aires”, signed on February 27, 1967, at the Third Special Inter-American Conference; by the Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States “Protocol of Cartagena de Indias”, adopted on December 5, 1985, at the Fourteenth Special Session of the General Assembly; by the Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States “Protocol of Washington”, adopted on December 14, 1992, at the Sixteenth Special Session of the General Assembly, and by the Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States “Protocol of Managua”, adopted on June 10, 1993, at the Nineteenth Special Session of the General Assembly. 23 Taking into account Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (transcribed above), it is valid to have recourse to the ordinary meaning of the words that, in addition, in this case, correspond to the understanding that best accords with the object and purpose of the Convention, that is the protection of human rights. 24 25 Consulted on website: http://dle.rae.es. Article 45(b) of the Charter of the Organization of American States establishes that “[w]ork is a right and a social duty […].” 26 27 Adopted on November 17, 1988. Entered into force on November 16, 1999. Cf. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989, paras. 43 and 45. 28