11 31. For example, in Advisory Opinion No. 22 on Entitlement of Legal Entities to Hold Rights under the Inter-American Human Rights System, when establishing the regime of State obligations with regard to trade or labor unions, the Inter-American Court did not delimit or establish an exhaustive or restricted series of rights54 that would be contemplated in Article 8(1)(a) of the Protocol of San Salvador. Rather, the Inter-American Court merely established and interpreted some “examples” of obligations and that, if those obligations were not respected and ensured, Article 8(1)(a) of the Protocol of San Salvador could be violated. Thus, the InterAmerican Court considered that: 32. 101. Additionally, the Court considers that the general obligation of States to ensure trade union rights contained in Article 8(1)(a) of the Protocol translates into the positive obligations to permit and encourage the creation of appropriate conditions to ensure that such rights can be realized effectively. In this regard, the Court referred to ILO Convention 87 in order to mention examples that illustrate the positive obligations that arise from the general obligation to ensure the rights recognized to trade unions, federations and confederations. Thus, the Court notes that Article 3(1) of that Convention establishes the right of workers’ organisations “to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.” 102. In keeping with the foregoing, the general obligation of the States to respect rights entails negative obligations such as refraining from creating legal or political barriers that could prevent unions, federations and confederations from being able to function freely and, in addition, trade unions from being able to associate. In this regard, the Court notes that the said Article 3.2 of Convention 87 establishes that “[t]he public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict [the rights recognized in the preceding paragraph of the article] or impede the lawful exercise thereof.”55 33. This example in the area of labor union matters is extremely relevant. Indeed, by referring to Article 45(c) of the OAS Charter, the judgment in the case of Lagos del Campo implicitly accepts – although not in relation to the litigation in this case – that even though the Protocol of San Salvador is the main instrument in the area of ESCER under the inter-American system, when it was drawn up, it did not contemplate exhaustively all the facets and angles of the rights that the said treaty recognized (such as the right of workers to associate freely for the defense and promotion of their interests). Thus, it is the Inter-American Court that, by an evolutive interpretation,56 has undertaken to determine the content of the rights and their application to specific cases, either economic, social, cultural and environmental rights or civil and political rights (determining their content in the particular case); and this, when any right mentioned above has been violated in relation to the general obligations established in Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention, as has been its consistent practice by resorting to other international instruments to supplement the provisions of the Pact of San José57 or the Protocol of San Consequently, the Court considered that the most favorable interpretation of Article 8(1)(a) entailed understanding that it establishes rights in favor of trade unions, federations and confederations, because they are interlocutors of their members and seek to safeguard and ensure their rights and interests. Reaching any other conclusion would mean excluding the effects of the OAS Charter and, consequently, prejudicing the effective enjoyment of the rights it recognizes. Entitlement of Legal Entities to Hold Rights under the Inter-American Human Rights System (Interpretation and scope of Article 1(2), in relation to Articles 1(1), 8, 11(2), 13, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 44, 46, and 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as of Article 8(1) A and B of the Protocol of San Salvador). OC-22/16, supra, para. 97. 54 Entitlement of Legal Entities to Hold Rights under the Inter-American Human Rights System (Interpretation and scope of Article 1(2), in relation to Articles 1(1), 8, 11(2), 13, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 44, 46, and 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as of Article 8(1) A and B of the Protocol of San Salvador). OC-22/16, supra, para. 101 and 102. 55 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 114. 56 For example, this has been reflected in case law on indigenous matters in relation to Article 21 of the American Convention, Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79 and Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2015. Series C No. 309. 57