C. Right to work and to just, equitable and satisfactory conditions that ensure the safety, health and hygiene of the worker, right to health and social security and to equality and non-discrimination, in relation to the obligations of respect and guarantee, and the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law (Article 26 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument) C.1. General considerations with respect to the content and scope of Article 26 of the American Convention 61. The Court recalls that in the friendly settlement agreement, the parties asked the Court to rule on the content and scope of the rights that were affected in this case, especially those derived from Article 26 of the American Convention. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the rights derived from Article 26, in terms of their immediate enforceability. Consequently, the State accepted this Court’s jurisdiction to examine direct violations of Article 26 of the Convention. 62. Regarding the scope of Article 26 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, this Court has interpreted that the Convention incorporated in its catalog of protected rights the so-called economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER), through a derivation of the norms contained in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), as well as the rules of interpretation established in Article 29 of the Convention itself, which states that “no provision [shall be interpreted as] limiting or excluding” the enjoyment of the rights established in the American Declaration, including those recognized in different domestic laws of the States. Furthermore, in accordance with a systematic, teleological and evolutive interpretation, the Court has referred to the international and national corpus iuris on this matter to give specific content to the scope of the rights protected under the Convention, in order to determine the scope of the specific obligations of each right. 68 63. Thus, the Court uses the sources, principles and criteria of the international corpus iuris as special applicable norms to determine the content of the ESCER protected under Article 26 of the Convention. This Court has indicated that the aforementioned norms are used to determine the rights in question as a supplement to the provisions of the Convention. In this regard, the Court reiterates that it is not assuming competence over treaties for which it has none; nor is it granting conventional rank to norms contained in other national or international instruments relating to the ESCER. 69 On the contrary, the Court will make an interpretation in keeping with the provisions of Article 29 and its case law practice, allowing it to update the meaning of the rights derived from the OAS Charter that are recognized by Article 26 of the Convention. 64. Moreover, in determining the content and scope of the ESCER involved, the Court places special emphasis on the American Declaration given that, as was established this Court: […] [T]he member states of the Organization have signaled their agreement that the Declaration contains and defines the fundamental human rights referred to in the Charter. Thus the Charter of the Organization cannot be interpreted and applied as Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, paras. 141 to 149, and Advisory Opinion OC-27/21, supra, para. 46. 68 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 143, and Advisory Opinion OC-27/21, supra, para. 49. 69 22