B) The interdependence and indivisibility of all the rights as an essential element to grant direct justiciability to economic, social and cultural rights 15. The possibility for this Inter-American Court to rule on the right to health arises, first, from the “interdependence and indivisibility” that exists between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. 32 Indeed, the Judgment that underlies this separate opinion, expressly recognizes this nature, because all rights should be understood integrally as human rights, without any specific hierarchy, that may be required at all times before those authorities who have the respective competence. 33 16. We consider that the above is of the greatest importance for the progressive development and justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights. The Inter-American Court bases itself on a 2009 precedent – decided by the former composition of the Court – in which it had already recognized the “interdependence” of human rights. Indeed, on that occasion, the Court stated: 34 101. In this regard, the Court finds it pertinent to recall the interdependence that exists between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, because they should be understood integrally as human rights, without any specific hierarchy, and may be required at all times before those authorities who have the respective competence. 17. In addition to establishing “the interdependence” of human rights in that case, the Inter-American Court endorsed the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on interpretative extensions towards the protection of social and economic rights. On that occasion, it stated: 35 In this regard, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights should be quoted, which, in the case of Airey, indicated that: The Court is aware that the further realisation of social and economic rights is largely dependent on the situation - notably financial - reigning in the State in question. On the other hand, the [European] Convention must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions […] and it is designed to safeguard the individual in a real and practical way as regards those areas with which it deals […]. Whilst the Convention sets forth what are essentially civil and political rights, many of them have implications of a social or economic nature. The Court therefore considers, like the Commission, that the mere fact that an interpretation of the Convention may extend into the sphere of social and economic rights should not be a decisive factor against such an interpretation; there is no water-tight division separating that sphere from the field covered by the Convention. 36 and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 158, and Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003, Series C No. 98, paras. 147 and 148; and Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 163. In this last case, the State acquiesced to its responsibility for the violation of Article 26, but the Court only referred to this article in its narrative on the violation of the right to life. 32 Paragraph 5 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on June 25, 1993, states categorically that: “[a]ll human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.” 33 Cf. para. 131 of the Judgment. 34 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra, para. 101. 35 Idem. Similarly, see United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 9, E/C.12/1998/24, 3 December 1998, para. 10, and ECHR. Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania. Nos. 55480/00 and 59330/0. Second Section. Judgment of 27 July 2004, para. 47. 36 ECHR. Airey v. Ireland. No. 6289/73. Judgment of 9 October 1979, para. 26. 7