49 professional, personal and family life (supra, para. 72). In this regard, during the public hearing before the Court, Mr. Lagos del Campo stated that the following were among the consequences of his dismissal: [He was unable to obtain a pension because,] according to the law, [he needed to work] five more years in order to obtain a decent pension to be able to survive; but all that was violated because [he] did not meet the requirement of the President’s law. […] During that Government’s dictatorship […], unfortunately, any citizen or worker who was over 50 years of age no longer had access to any company or well-paid job. [… Furthermore,] after so many long years of suffering, of trying to obtain justice at the national level, during this international case, […, in 2015, he had] experienced [health problems]. 153. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that, Lagos del Campo was deprived of his employment and security. Therefore, the Peruvian State failed to protect his of Article 26 of the American Convention, in relation to instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Lagos del Campo. owing to his arbitrary dismissal, Mr. other benefits resulting from social right to job security, in interpretation Articles 1(1), 13, 8 and 16 of this 154. Lastly, it should be pointed out that the Court has established previously that it has jurisdiction to examine and decide disputes relating to Article 26 of the American Convention, as an integral part of the rights named in it and, regarding which, Article 1(1) establishes the general obligations of the States to respect and to ensure rights (supra para. 142). The Court has also developed important case law on this matter, in light of different articles of the Convention. On this basis, the present judgment develops and substantiates a specific condemnation for the violation of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, established in Chapter III of this treaty, entitled Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 3. Violations of freedom of association 155. Article 16(1) recognizes the right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes. The right to freedom of association is characterized by enabling individuals to create or take part in entities or organizations in order to act collectively to achieve very diverse objectives, provided these are legitimate.218 The Court has established that those persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the States Parties have the right to associate freely with others, without the intervention of the public authorities limiting or obstructing the exercise of the said right. This signifies that they have the right to associate in order to seek the common attainment of a lawful goal, and the correlative negative obligation of the State not to exert pressure or interfere so as to change or denature this goal.219 Additionally, the Court has observed that positive obligations also arise from freedom of association; these are to prevent attacks against this right, protect those who exercise it, and investigate any violations against it. These positive obligations must be met even in the context of relations between private individuals, if applicable.220 156. In labor matters, the Court has established that freedom of association protects the ability to constitute labor unions and implement their internal structure, activities and programs of action, without the intervention of the public authorities limiting or hindering the exercise of this Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 169. 218 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 156, and Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 205. 219 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 121, and Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 271. 220