45 mental integrity and personal autonomy and the liberty to take decisions regarding one’s own body and health requires, on the one hand, that the State ensure and respect decisions and choices that have been made freely and responsibly and, on the other, that access to the relevant information is guaranteed so that individuals are in a position to take informed decisions on the course of action with regard to their body and health based on their personal life project. In the area of health, opportune, complete, comprehensible and reliable information should be provided, ex officio, because this is essential for decision-making in this area.181 156. In this regard, and as this Court has recognized, Article 13 of the American Convention includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, 182 which protects the right of access to information, including personal health-related information.183 The right of everyone to obtain information is supplemented by a correlative positive obligation of the State to provide this information, so that the individual may have access to receive and assess it.184 In this regard, health personnel should not wait for a patient to request information or ask question about their health for the information to be given. The obligation of the State to provide information ex officio, known as “active transparency obligation,” imposes on States the duty to provide the necessary information for individuals to be able to exercise other rights, which is particularly relevant in the area of health care, because this contributes to the accessibility of the health services and to enabling individuals to take free, full, well-informed decisions. Consequently, the right of access to information has an instrumental nature to achieve the satisfaction of other rights under the Convention.185 157. It is evident that sexual and reproductive health186 is an expression of health that has special implications for women owing to their biological capacity to conceive and give birth. On the one hand, it is related to reproductive freedom and autonomy with regard to the right to take autonomous decisions, free from violence, coercion and discrimination, concerning one’s life project, body, and sexual and reproductive health.187 On the other hand, it refers to both reproductive health services attainable standard of health, E/C.12/2000/4, August 11, 2000, para. 8. 181 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina, supra, para. 294. Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 64, and Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 261. 182 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 77, and Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina, supra, para. 294. See also, UN, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14, The right to the highest attainable standard of health, August 11, 2000, para. 12. 183 184 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 77. Cf. IACHR, Access to Information on Reproductive Health from a Human Rights Perspective, November 22, 2011, paras. 25 to 26. 185 The Court has adopted the concept of reproductive health defined by the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994, as “a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility which are not against the law, and the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chances of having a healthy infant.” Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, El Cairo, UN, A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1, 1994, para. 7.2. Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 148. Similarly, the Court has considered that, according to the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), sexual and reproductive health “implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and have the capability to reproduce as well as the freedom to decide if, when, and how to do so.” Pan-American Health Organization, Health in the Americas 2007, Volume I - Regional, Washington D.C, 2007, p. 143. 186 187 Cf. UN, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 22, Right to sexual and reproductive