100. Regarding the scope of Article 26 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, this Court has understood that the Convention incorporates the so-called economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER) into its catalog of protected rights, derived from the norms recognized in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), as well as the rules of interpretation set forth in Article 29 of the Convention. This instrument prevents the limitation or exclusion of the enjoyment of the rights established in the American Declaration, including those recognized in domestic law. Likewise, in accordance with a systematic, teleological and evolving interpretation, the Court has drawn on the international and national corpus iuris on the matter to give specific content to the scope of the rights protected by the Convention, in order to determine the scope of the specific obligations of each right. 105 101. Accordingly, 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 by Article 26 of the Convention. The Court has also indicated that the aforementioned norms are used to determine the rights in question as a complement to the provisions of the Convention. Thus, it has repeatedly affirmed that it is not assuming jurisdiction over treaties in which it has none; nor is it granting conventional rank to norms contained in other national or international instruments related to ESCER. 106 On the contrary, the Court makes an interpretation in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Article 29 and in line with its case law, which allows it to update the significance of the rights derived from the OAS Charter that are recognized by Article 26 of the Convention. 102. Moreover, in determining the content and scope of the ESCER involved, the Court gives special emphasis to the American Declaration, since, as this Court has established: […][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 far as human rights are concerned without relating its norms, consistent with the practice of the organs of the OAS. 107 103. The Court also reiterates that human rights treaties are living instruments, the interpretation of which must evolve with the times and with current living conditions. This evolutive interpretation is consistent with the general rules of treaty interpretation established in Article 29 of the American Convention, and in the Vienna Convention. Furthermore, the third paragraph of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention authorizes the use of interpretative means such as agreements or the relevant rules or practice of international law that States have expressed on the subject matter of the treaty, which are some of the methods related to an evolving view of the Treaty. Thus, in order to determine the scope of the rights derived from the economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural norms contained in the OAS Charter, the Court refers to the relevant instruments of the international corpus iuris. 108 105 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 141 to 149, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 95. 106 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 Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras. Judgment of August 31, 2021. Series C No. 432, para. 63. 107 Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, in the context of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 43. 108 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Legal Process. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 114, and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 65. 30