44 person’s quality of life.170 Private life includes the way in which individuals see themselves and how they decide to project themselves towards others, 171 and is an essential condition for the free development of the personality. The Court has also indicated that choices and decisions with regard to maternity form an essential part of the free development of a woman’s personality. 172 Consequently, the decision of whether or not to become a mother or father belongs to the sphere of the autonomous decisions of the individual in relation to his or her private and family life. 173 153. On this point, the Court reiterates that Article 11(2) of the American Convention is closely related to the right recognized in Article 17 of this instrument,174 which recognizes the central role of the family and family life in the existence of the individual and in society in general.175 In particular, Article 17(2) of the American Convention protects the right to raise a family, which includes the possibility of procreation.176 154. The Court has also underlined the intrinsic connection between the rights to private life and to personal integrity and human health,177 and that the absence of adequate medical care may result in the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention.178 The Court has established that, in order to comply with the obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity in the area of health care, States must create an appropriate legal framework that regulates the provision of health services, establishing quality standards for public and private institutions, which prevent any risk of violating personal integrity when providing such services. In addition, the State must establish official State mechanisms to supervise and monitor health care institutions, and procedures for the administrative and legal protection of victims, the effectiveness of which will, ultimately, depend on how they are implemented by the corresponding administrative body. 179 155. Health, as an integral part of the right to personal integrity, encompasses not only access to health care services under which everyone has an equal opportunity to enjoy the highest attainable level of health, but also the freedom of each individual to control his or her own health and body, and the right to be free from interference, such as the right to be free from torture, non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation.180 Thus, the existence of a connection between physical and 170 Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 143. Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 119, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 143. 171 Cf. Mutatis mutandi, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 97, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 143. 172 173 Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 143. 174 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 169. 175 Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 145. Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 145, citing Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 19, The family, July 27, 1990, para. 5 [“The right raise a family implies, in principle, the possibility to procreate and live together.”] 176 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 117; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 130; Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 171, and Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala, supra, para. 170. 177 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 157, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 171. 178 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, paras. 89 and 99, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 132. 179 180 Cf. UN, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14, The right to the highest