(freedom from ex post facto laws), 173 8 (judicial guarantees), 174 11 (protection of honor and dignity) 175 and 22 (movement and residence), 176 among others. 94. There is no reason not to examine the possible violation of the guarantee of a social right, derived from Article 26 in relation to Article 1(1) of the Pact of San José, even though it was not expressly cited by one of the parties. It is the obligation of the Inter-American Court to apply the iura novit curia principle — and the preceding paragraph reveals that it constitutes the Inter-American Court’s practice with regard to civil rights – if, based on the factual framework of the case and the proven facts, clear implications can be observed for the right to health, as in this case, that arise from the impact of medical malpractice with the State’s responsibility on the health of one of the victims. In addition, it can be seen that the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission cites this social right, 177 as does the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence of the representatives of the victims, 178 and there are also precise references to the right to health in the State’s answering brief, 179 while the parties have had ample opportunity to refer to the facts in the instant case. 95. In any case, the implications for the right to health are revealed, also, by the citing and use in the Judgment of numerous international instruments and sources relating to this social right, such as Articles XI of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, 10 of the Protocol of San Salvador, 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Social Charter of the Americas of June 2012, and General Comments 3, 9 and 14 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are even cited, as well as the OAS Charter and, expressly, the derivation of the “right to health” from Article 26 of the American Convention (see supra paras. 28 to 32). 180 96. Accordingly, it is valid for the Inter-American Court, in application of the iura novit curia principle and based on the factual framework of the case, to be able to analyze, directly and autonomously, the guarantee of the right to health — and not only connected 170 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 107. 171 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al., supra, paras. 100 and 101, and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra, para. 155. 172 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 85. 173 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor, supra, para. 184, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, paras. 53 and 54. 174 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 137. 175 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 109. 176 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 308. 177 Merits Report 75/2011, of July 20, 2011, p. 22, para. 83: “[…] when the actions of the State’s authorities lead to a failure in the guarantees protected at the domestic and inter-American levels – hindering the right of access to justice associated with a claim related to the right to health, a public service protected by the States (underlining added). 178 Also, brief with pleadings, motions and evidence of the representatives of the victims dated April 28, 2012, p. 42: “the laws of Ecuador establish the right to health as a fundamental human right and establish the obligation of the State to regulate the health care of the persons subject to its jurisdiction, either directly or through third parties.” 179 Cf. the State’s answering brief, pp. 221 to 226. 180 Also, see in particular para. 131, and footnote 176 of the Judgment. 33