4 19. Thus, it is evident that the main purpose of the petitioner, Mr. Lagos del Campo, was always the protection of his labor rights, seeking re-establishment of those rights. III. The right to work protected by Articles 26 and 25 of the Convention 20. I would point out that in the Cases of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru and Chinchilla Sandoval et al. v. Guatemala, I expressed my opinion on the justiciability of the rights derived from Article 26 of the Convention. In particular, in the dissenting opinion I submitted together with Judge Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot in the Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, we underlined the need to make an evolutive interpretation of the scope of the rights established in Article 26 of the Convention, and to examine the justiciability of the right to work more thoroughly. In addition, we noted that the right to work is regulated in most Constitutions of the member countries of the Organization of American States. Furthermore, we emphasized that the right to work did not involve an absolute right, and thus it could have limits. In that opinion, we considered that Peru had violated the right to work of the victims and we stated that the right to work was an autonomous right under comparative law. 21. Meanwhile, in my separate opinion in the case of Chinchilla Sandoval et al. v. Guatemala, I indicated that the jurisdictional protection of the right to health should be more explicit and direct than merely reiterating its protection in relation to the rights to life and to personal integrity. In addition, I mentioned that the Court and the American continent were prepared to make the ESCER justiciable and, thus, possible victims could understand that the inter-American system was a channel open to those who need to realize such rights. 22. Thus, it is very relevant to reiterate that the right to work is a right that is regulated by most Constitutions of the OAS member countries, either explicitly, implicitly with other precepts, or by the incorporation of international treaties. In the case of Peru, the right to job security was regulated in its Constitution at the time of the facts and at the present time (para. 138 of the judgment). arguments advanced by the State party are closely linked to the merits of the communication and should be taken up when the merits of the communication are examined. The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims, for purposes of admissibility, in that they appear to raise issues under article 2, article 6, paragraph 1, and article 7 of the Covenant, and declares them admissible.” Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1225/2003, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/99/D/1225/2003 of August 18, 2010, paras. 1.1 3.3, 8.3, 9.7, 9.9 and 10; Case of Mariano Pimentel and Others v. The Philippines: “The authors claim that their proceedings in the Philippines on the enforcement of the US judgement have been unreasonably prolonged and that the exorbitant filing fee amounts to a de facto denial of their right to an effective remedy to obtain compensation for their injuries, under Article 2 of the Covenant. They argue that they are not required to exhaust domestic remedies, as the proceedings before the Philippine courts have been unreasonably prolonged. The communication also appears to raise issues under Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. […] The Committee observes that since the authors brought their action before the Regional Trial Court in 1997, the same Court and the Supreme Court considered the issue of the required filing fee arising from the authors claim on three subsequent occasions (9 September 1998, 28 July 1999 and 15 April 2005) and over a period of eight years before reaching a conclusion in favour of the authors. The Committee considers that the length of time taken to resolve this issue raises an admissible issue under article 14, paragraph 1, as well as article 2, paragraph 3, and should be considered on the merits.” Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1320/2004, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/89/D/1320/2004 of April 3, 2007, paras. 1, 3, 8.3, 9.2 and 10; Case of Davlatbibi Shukurova v. Tajikistan: “The author claims that the facts set out above amount to a violation of the rights of Sherali and Dovud Nazriev under articles 6, 7, 9 and 14, paragraphs 1, 3 (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), and 5 of the Covenant. Although the author does not specifically invoke article 7 in her own respect, the communication also appears to raise issues under this provision.” Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1044/2002, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/86/D/1044/2002, of March 2006, paras.1.1, 3, 8.2, 8.7 and 9. Cf. Case of Weerawansa v. Sri Lanka, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1406/2005, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/95/D/1406/2005 of May 14, 2009, paras. 1, 3.3, 7.4 and 8; Case of Boudjemai v. Algeria, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1791/2008, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/107/D/1791/2008 of June 5, 2013, para. 8.1 and 9. Case of Benaziza v. Algeria, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1588/2007 CCPR/C/99/D/1588/2007 of September 16, 2010, paras. 9.9 and 10; Cf. UN Doc. CCPR/C/107/D/1917, 1918, 1925/2009 & 1953/2010 (2013), Independent opinion of Fabián Omar Salvioli, Committee member.