82. In addition, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica, in the recent Judgment 3691 of March 2013, 145 examined the serious obstacles in access to health care owing to the “waiting lists” that were delaying the provision of medical attention to many Costa Ricans. The Constitutional Chamber ordered that gradual, but genuine, steps be taken to eradicate unreasonable waiting lists for the provision of health care services. It requested that technical studies be undertaken that would allow a plan to be drawn up within the 12 months following the judgment. According to the Constitutional Chamber, this plan should define reasonable waiting times for pathology or urgent cases, as well as objective criteria for defining the inclusion and placement of a patient on the waiting lists. The Chamber also indicated that it was necessary to establish a timetable showing progress, and the administrative or technical measures to comply with the goals of the plan, so that, once the plan had been approved, in these first 12 months, within the following 12 months at the most, the waiting lists establish reasonable waiting times, according to the respective medical specialty and diagnosis. 83. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court of Guatemala 146 has ordered the necessary medical services that people with HIV/AIDS may require, “understanding that this obligation entails the necessary medical assistance (consultation and hospitalization as applicable), medical treatment (provisions of the necessary medicines required by the said patients, once their situation has been verified based on studies performed by professionals with the relevant expertise), and the other services designed to preserve the health and life of these individuals, with the appropriate speed called for by the circumstances.” 84. Similarly, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has established that the right to protection of health “includes the reception of the basic medicines for the treatment of an illness, as an integral part of the basic health care services consisting in the medical care, the curative activities of which signify providing opportune treatment to the person who is ill, which evidently includes the application of the respective basic medicines, in keeping with a basic table of health sector inputs. The foregoing, notwithstanding medicines that have been discovered recently and that there are other ailments that warrant the same or greater attention from the health care sector, because these are matters that go beyond the right of the individual to receive the basic medicines for the treatment of his illness, as an integral part of the right to the protection of health that is recognized as an individual guarantee, and of the obligation to provide them of the entities and departments that offer the respective services.” 147 In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized the normative nature of the right to health established as a fundamental right. 148 145 Supreme Court of Costa Rica, Constitutional Chamber, Judgment 3691, March 13, 2013. 146 Constitutional Court of Guatemala, Case file 1055, June 25, 2008. 147 Ruling of the Court in plenary XIX/2000, entitled: “Health. The right to its protection, which, as an individual guarantee, is recognized in article 4 of the Constitution, includes the reception of basic medicines for the treatment of illnesses and their provision by the entities and departments that offer the respective services” (Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Ninth period, Volume XI, March 2000, p. 112). Amparo under review 2231/97. José Luis Castro Ramírez. October 25, 1999. Rapporteur: Justice Mariano Azuela Güitrón; Justice Sergio Salvador Aguirre Anguiano who was absent endorsed the text. Secretary: Lourdes Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot. 148 See ruling of the Court in plenary XV/2011, entitled: “The right to health. Its normative nature”; the text of which reads: “Our country is experiencing a stage of intense changes in the way in which the normative substance of the Constitution of the United Mexican States is identified and its consequences for how the amparo proceeding functions. A specific example of this phenomenon is the change in the understanding, which to date has been traditional, of rights such as the right to health or to education. In other words, despite their embodiment in the text of the Constitution, these rights have traditionally be understood as mere declarations of intent, without much real binding power over the action of citizens and public authorities. It has been understood that their effective realization was subordinated to specific legislative and administrative actions, in the absence of which the constitutional justices could not do very much. Now, to the contrary, the basic premise is that, even though in a 29