the violations in the operative paragraphs and also when addressing the allegations in a single chapter. 6. First, as I have pointed out in the cases of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru15 and Hernández v. Argentina,16 the Court has randomly and without justification, modified its method of presenting the operative paragraphs of its decisions, seeking to render invisible the internal disagreements concerning the scope of Article 26. 7. Furthermore, this method, which groups together in a single operative paragraph the declaration of all the violations, avoids revealing the divergent positions concerning the justiciability of the ESCER to the detriment of the legitimacy conferred by the unanimous position of the Court in relation to the other rights that were violated. I refer to the fact that, although the principal legitimacy, or legitimacy of origin, of the Court’s decisions is based on the majority established in the Rules of Procedure, this is evidently perceived more clearly when all the judges are in agreement with the final decision. In this case, the fact of grouping together in a single operative paragraph the violations of Articles 8(1), 23(1)(c) and 26, did not show the unanimity of the Court in condemning the violations, or the partial discrepancy in relation to Article 26. 8. Second, in this case, the majority considered that it was appropriate to address the arguments on the merits in a single section and to declare the violation of judicial guarantees, the right to remain in the post under general conditions of equality and also the right to work of Mr. Casa Nina in a single operative paragraph. As can be observed from the examination of the merits, which analyzes the alleged violation of the right to work in only two paragraphs (108 and 109), it is clear that this is only explained and justified by its relationship to the right to remain in office under general conditions of equality. Thus, this not only demonstrates the futility of the analysis of Article 26 of the Convention, but also highlights how the method of grouping the alleged violations in a single chapter blurs the edges of the rights protected by the Convention and weakens the quality of the Court’s arguments when substantiating the alleged violations. 9. This foregoing is the reason for this separate opinion because, although I agree with the declaration of the violation of Articles 8(1) and 23(1)(c) and, consequently, voted in favor of the third operative paragraph, I only did so due to the violation of those two articles. The method used by the Court in this judgment did not allow me to adequately express my legal position, because I 15 Cf. Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 6. 16 Cf. Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 17.