be a viable answer in our times and would seem to be an equivocation or a “categorical error,” as the Constitutional Court of Colombia itself indicated in Judgment T-760 of 2008. 141 The Colombian Court has also specified the different implications of the judicial protection of the social benefit dimension of the fundamental rights, clarifying those obligations with immediate effect and those obligations to be complied with gradually. 79. In the above-mentioned Judgment T-760 of 2008 of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, it is indicated that some obligation associated with these social benefit aspects must be complied with immediately, “either because this requires a simple action by the State that does not involve significant resources – for example, the obligation to provide information on their rights to patients before they are subject to a medical treatment” – or “because, despite the mobilization of resources that the task entails, the gravity and urgency of the matter call for an immediate action by the State (for example, the obligation to adopt the adequate and necessary measures to guarantee health care to every infant during its first year of life).” 142 80. Other obligations of a social benefit nature derived from a fundamental right require progressive compliance, owing to the complex nature of the actions and resources that are needed to guarantee the real enjoyment of these aspects of protection of a right. However, the Colombian Court reiterated the precedent established in Judgment T-595 of 2002, according to which “the fact that a social benefit protected by a right is of a programmatic nature does not mean that it may not be claimed or that it may be omitted eternally.” 143 81. Several examples taken from comparative law illustrate the direct justiciability of the right to health. For example, in the Case of Viceconte, decided by an Argentine Federal National Contentious-Administrative Chamber, 144 the courts were asked to order the Government to produce a vaccine in order to provide protection against Argentine hemorrhagic fever for a significant number of Argentines. In light of the incorporation into the Constitution of the international treaties that recognize the right to health, the Chamber determined that, by omission, the Government had failed to comply with is obligation to provide the vaccine. As the private sector considered that the production of the vaccine was not profitable, the Chamber ordered the State to produce it. The Chamber ordered the investment in the production of the vaccine, and required compliance with an investment timetable already established by the Government itself. 141 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-760 de 2008 (Judge Rapporteur: Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa), para. 3.3.5. 142 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-760 de 2008 (Judge Rapporteur: Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa), para. 3.3.6. 143 In this regard, following this judgment delivered in 2002, it was indicated that the social benefit and progressive aspect of a constitutional right allows its holder to claim judicially, at the very least: (a) the existence of a public policy; (b) that it is not symbolic or merely formal, which means it is clearly designed to guarantee the effective enjoyment of the right. This point is important because “the Constitution is violated when a plan or program exists, but it is verified that: (i) “it only exists in writing and its implementation has not started,” or (ii) “that even if it is being implement, this is evidently pointless, either because it does not respond to the real problems and needs of the holders of the right in question, or because its implementation has been delayed indefinitely, or for an unreasonable time,” and (c) that includes mechanisms for the participation of the interested parties that encourages the greatest accountability possible. Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-760 of 2008 (Judge Rapporteur: Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa). 144 Federal National Contentious-Administrative Appeals Chamber of Argentina, Chamber IV, Case of Viceconte, Mariela Cecilia v/National State – Ministry of Health and Social Action: ref/protection law 16,986. Case No. 31,777/96, Judgment of June 2, 1998. An analysis of this case can be seen in Abramovich, Víctor and Courtis, Christian, Los derechos sociales como derechos exigibles, Madrid, Trotta, 2002, pp. 146 to 154. 28