11 Development,” and that the first article in this chapter, Article 30,53 considers this development as an objective to achieve through compliance with the provisions that follow. It should also be noted that the other articles in this chapter reaffirm the concept that these are “goals” that the States undertake to achieve and not rights that may be judicialized internationally. In other words, it is plain that, applying the rule of harmonious interpretation established in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,54 it is not possible to infer that it was agreed that the standards established in the said Chapter VII established rights for the individual; rather they are State obligations when elaborating and applying their corresponding public policies for the benefit of those who are subject to their respective jurisdictions. Thus, the object and purpose of such standards is not related to human rights, but to the integral development of the nations. D. Consequences Regarding the interpretation made in the judgment that the rights referred to in Article 26 of the Convention would also be “enforceable in all cases before the competent authorities,”55 this begs the question of why the said rights were not directly included in the articles of the Convention, as the Civil and Political Rights expressly were and, to the contrary, it was chosen to make a general statement in the said article, situated in a special chapter, Chapter III of Part I, entitled Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Thus, the issue is to determine the reason for the existence of the said provision and, consequently, for the regulation of the latter rights. The answer would seem evident; namely, that the economic, social and cultural rights are not subject to the same protection regime as the civil and political rights, described in Chapter II. Thus, although it is true that there is a close connection between both types of rights, it is also true that the Convention gives them a differentiated treatment, which is indicated precisely in Article 26. Furthermore, if we accept what the judgment indicates in relation to the said Article 26, this would make the provisions of Articles 31, 76(1) and 77(1)56 of the Convention unnecessary and useless; in other words, the signature of additional protocols in order to recognize rights other than those already in the Convention and to include them in the protection regime that it establishes, because it would be sufficient to apply the first of the said articles to achieve this. In this regard, even, as already indicated, the “Protocol of San Salvador” and, especially, its articles on the right to organize and join trade unions, and the right to education,57 would not be necessary to claim the violation of those rights before the Court, because the said Article 26 alone would be sufficient. In other words, based on the principle that “Ubi eadem est ratio, eadem est o debet esse juris dispositivo” [for the same reason, the same legal provision], if the criteria adopted in the judgment is followed and taken to its extreme, there would seem to be no reason why the presumed violations of all the human rights that the provisions of Chapter VII of the OAS Charter would imply could not also be invoked before the Court. 58 “The Member States, inspired by the principles of inter-American solidarity and cooperation, pledge themselves to a united effort to ensure international social justice in their relations and integral development for their peoples, as conditions essential to peace and security. Integral development encompasses the economic, social, educational, cultural, scientific, and technological fields through which the goals that each country sets for accomplishing it should be achieved.” 53 54 Footnote 9. 55 Para. 141. 56 Footnote 14. 57 Footnote 42. Thus, for example, according to this criteria and restricting the reference only to the articles of the OAS Charter cited in the judgments – that is Articles 34, 45 and 46 – the rights that “derive” from the “basic goals” “principles and mechanisms” or “goal,” as applicable, could be judicialized before the Court, and they establish: 58