2 3. Second, in this historic judgment, the Court declared, 3 for the first time, the violation of Article 26 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1),4 owing to the violation of the job security of Mr. Lagos del Campo.5 Using an evolutive interpretation and distancing itself from its traditional case law, the Inter-American Court provided new normative content to Article 26 of the Pact of San José, read in light of Article 29 of this instrument. Thus, the said article is not merely a programmatic standard for the States Parties to the American Convention, but rather a provision that imposes on the Inter-American Court the obligation to refer to the Charter of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS Charter”) to achieve the full effectiveness of the rights derived from the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in that Charter.6 I referred to the possibility of considering the ESCER justiciable via Article 26 of the American Convention in the first case that I heard as a judge of the Inter-American Court in 2013.7 And I have repeated this in subsequent cases concerning the right to health (2015-2016),8 the right to work (2015),9 and the right to decent housing (2016);10 matters on which I have had the opportunity to give my opinion to date. 4. In this way, the Inter-American Court considered the right to job security as a right protected by Article 26 of the American Convention and, consequently, declared that the Peruvian State was internationally responsible for failing to adopt adequate measures to protect the violation of the right to work that could be attributed to third parties.11 That said, in order to analyze the meaning and scope of Article 26 of the Pact of San José, the Court took into consideration the general rules of interpretation established in Article 29(b), (c) and (d) of this treaty and, thus, specific labor rights were derived from Articles 34(g), 45(b) and (c), and 46 of the OAS Charter.12 The Court also took into account the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,13 the explicit acknowledgement of the rights that were in dispute in the Constitution Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017, Series C No. 340, paras. 153, 154 and 166, also fifth operative paragraph. This is the first time in its almost 40 years of existence and 30 years of contentious jurisdiction that the Inter-American Court has declared the violation of this precept of the Convention. 3 The Court also declared that the rights established in Articles 8, 13 and 16 had been violated in relation to job security. Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 153. 4 In the judgment, in relation to Article 1(1), it was considered that “[…] in light of the arbitrary dismissal by the company […] the State failed to adopt adequate measures to protect the violation of the right to work by third parties”. Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 151. 5 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 141 to 154. Also, see my concurring opinion in the Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325, paras. 22 to 26. 6 Cf. Concurring opinion in the Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261. 7 Cf. Concurring opinions: Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298 (endorsed by Judges Roberto Caldas and Manuel Ventura Robles); Case of Chinchilla Sandoval et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, and Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329. 8 9 See the concurring opinion that I developed with Judge Roberto Caldas in the Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2015. Series C No. 296. 10 See the concurring opinion in the Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia, supra. 11 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 151. In para. 143 of the judgment, the Inter-American Court explained that: “[w]ork is a right and a social duty,” and that this should be performed with “fair wages, employment opportunities, and acceptable working conditions for all.” They [the articles of the OAS Charter] also establish the right of workers to “associate themselves freely for the defense and promotion of their interests.” In addition, they indicate that State must “harmonize the social legislation” for the protection of such rights.” Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 143. 12 The 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man expressly indicates in its Article XIV: “Every person has the right to work, under proper conditions, and to follow his vocation freely […].” 13