2 consequences with regard to the State’s international responsibility. To this end, the Court hears the arguments made before it, but is not dependent on them. The Commission may and should, in compliance with its functional duty, set out its point of view on the juridical nature of the facts that have violated rights. However, if it does not do so, or if this does not persuade the Court, the Court may and should supplement this at its own discretion. Furthermore, nothing prevents the alleged victim or his representatives from calling to the Court’s attention the application of the law to the disputed facts in the proceeding, even when their opinion may differ from that of the Inter-American Commission. However – as I have already said – they may not introduce into the proceeding facts that differ from those contained in the application. Finally, the Court will decide what is appropriate, taking into consideration the facts presented and the Commission’s legal arguments, submitted with the legitimization that the Convention recognizes to the plaintiff, as well as the points of view on those arguments offered by the alleged victim or his representatives in exercise of their procedural rights. 2. Violation of the right to property The members of the Court have unanimously considered that, in this case, there was a violation of the right to property of the pensioners. However, it should be noted that the right claimed by the complainants was protected by decisions of the Peruvian Judiciary, which were implemented after the application had been submitted and, therefore, after the substance of the proceedings, which concluded in this judgment of the Inter-American Court, had been defined. This explains why a violation that subsequently ceased was taken into consideration during the proceeding. When defining the existence of a violation, it is necessary to consider the conduct of the State as a whole. If an organ of the State admits and remedies adequately and promptly the violation committed by another State organ, the State does not incur international responsibility. It is precisely for this reason, that access to the interAmerican system is conditioned to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. It is hoped that these will resolve the dispute, remedying the violation that has been committed, if appropriate. Thus, the importance of the domestic jurisdiction having primacy over the international jurisdiction, which only acts in a subsidiary manner. In the case that this judgment refers to, the Peruvian courts issued the relevant protective decisions to safeguard the rights of the complainants until there had been a ruling on the merits of those rights. However, the Administration failed to comply with the judicial decisions. The time that this situation of non-compliance persisted was clearly excessive. In my opinion, in the instant case, the violation of Article 21 of the Convention is closely associated with the violation of Article 25 thereof. The violation of the right to property arises from the prolonged and unjustified noncompliance with the domestic jurisdictional decisions, because it would not have existed if those decisions had been complied with by the Administration, promptly and fully. 3. Progressive development of economic, social and cultural rights This issue is still new for the inter-American jurisdiction. In several cases, the Court has examined civil rights that border on economic, social and cultural rights, but it