San José. Thus, the Judgment states that “the right to personal integrity is directly and immediately linked to attention to human health.” 160 It then indicates that “the absence of adequate medical care can lead to the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention.” 161 And, subsequently, it stipulates “that the protection of the right to personal integrity supposes the regulation of the health care services in the domestic sphere, as well as the implementation of a series of mechanisms designed to ensure the effectiveness of this regulation.” 162 91. However, I consider that the right to health should be approached autonomously owing to the proven facts and the effects suffered by one of the victims owing to the medical malpractice with State responsibility. In this regard, since, from my perspective, the right to health of one of the victims is directly involved, the Court could have approached the implications of these effects, which could even have led to declaring a violation of the obligation to guarantee the right to health under Article 26 of the American Convention. 92. The fact that the direct violation of this social right was not claimed by the InterAmerican Commission or by the representatives of the victims does not represent an obstacle to the analysis of whether there was a violation of the obligation to guarantee the right to health derived from Article 26 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) the Pact of San José. 163 The absence of the explicit citing of the violation of a right or freedom does not prevent the Inter-American Court from analyzing it based on the general principle of law iura novit curia, “which international case law has used repeatedly, (understanding it) in the sense that the judge has the power and even the obligation to apply the pertinent legal provisions in a litigation, even when the parties do not cite it expressly.” 164 93. Indeed, the citing of this principle has been a practice of the international courts, 165 as it has also been the practice of the Inter-American Court starting with its first judgment on merits, 166 to examine violations of rights that were not expressly cited by the parties. The Inter-American Court has done this on many occasions in relation to different civil rights; for example, regarding the general obligations and rights contained in en Articles 1(1) (respect and guarantee), 167 2 (domestic legal provisions), 168 3 (recognition of juridical personality), 169 4 (right to life), 170 5 (personal integrity), 171 7 (personal liberty), 172 9 160 Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 130. 161 Idem. 162 Idem. 163 Even though the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission, the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence of the representatives of the victims, and the State’s answering brief all refer to the right to health, see infra footnotes 174, 175 and 176. 164 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002, Series C No. 97, para. 58; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 166, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008, Series C No. 177, para. 61. 165 Cf. PCIJ. Case of S.S. “Lotus.” Series A No. 10. Judgment of 27 September 1927, p. 31, and ECHR. Handyside v. United Kingdom. No. 5493/72. Judgment of 7 December 1976, para. 41. Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989, Series C No. 5, para. 172. 166 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Preliminary objections, supra, para. 163. 167 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz, supra, para. 172. 168 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina, supra, para. 58 169 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, paras. 186 and 187. 32