remedies, in the terms of paragraphs 27 to 34 of this judgment. Unanimously: 3. To reject the preliminary objection of the lack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court to act as a fourth instance, in the terms of paragraphs 38 to 39 of this judgment. Unanimously: 4. To reject the preliminary objection of the inappropriateness of the petition for lack of an object, in the terms of paragraphs 43 to 44 of this judgment. By six votes in favor and one vote against, that: 5. To reject the preliminary objection on the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Court with respect to Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in the terms of paragraphs 48 to 49 of this judgment. Dissenting: Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg. DECLARES, Unanimously, that: 6. The State is responsible for violating the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons listed in Annex 1 of this judgment, in the terms of paragraphs 89 to 105 of this judgment. By five votes in favor and two votes against, that: 7. The State is responsible for violating the right to work, recognized in Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons listed in Annex 1 of this judgment, in the terms of paragraphs 109 to 118 of this judgment. Dissenting: Judges Humberto Sierra Porto and Patricia Pérez Goldberg. Unanimously: 8. The State is responsible for violating political rights, recognized in Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons listed in Annex 1 of this judgment, in the terms of paragraphs 119 to 123 of this judgment. AND ESTABLISHES, unanimously, that: 9. This judgment is, per se, a form of reparation. 10. The State shall issue the publications ordered in paragraph 140 of this judgment. 42