of Human Rights.8 It also refers back to and develops an important distinction that is equally important for the substance of the judgment and for future analyses of this matter: that some aspects of the right to health are immediately enforceable (such as that of nondiscrimination), and that others are of a progressive nature (entailing the State obligation to move forward in the general protection of that right). 3. In Cuscul Pivaral, the Court reiterated the advances that have been made in the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence in the area of ESCER and protection of the right to health,9 introducing important considerations that it is relevant to underline. The first is that the judgment elaborates on the reasons that justify the direct justiciability of the ESCER in general,10 and of the right to health in particular.11 The second is that it develops standards for the right to health applicable to people living with HIV, 12 thus expanding what it had indicated in the cases of Gonzáles Lluy v. Ecuador13 and Duque v. Colombia.14 The third is that it examines the scope of the prohibition of discrimination in relation to groups that are at greater risk of being discriminated against, such as pregnant women living with HIV. 15 The fourth is that, for the first time in its history, the Court determined the responsibility of a State for the violation of the obligation of progressivity contained in Article 26 of the American Convention.16 Lastly, the Court established measures of reparation that respond to the two aspects of the right to health mentioned above to make reparation to the victims in the case and to address the State’s systemic deficiencies in order to ensure that it provided comprehensive health care.17 In the case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, the Court ruled for the first time in the sense of establishing that the right to health can be derived – via Article 26 of the American Convention – from the provisions of the OAS Charter. In this regard, the Inter-American Court indicated that: “116. […] the Court considers that various applicable standards may be derived from the consolidation of the right to health […], relating to specific basic health services […]. Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 116. 8 It should be noted that, in principle, the justiciability of the right to health was realized indirectly, by connectivity with civil and political rights, such as the right to life or to personal integrity in particular, see: Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329; Case of Chinchilla Sandoval et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312; Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261. 9 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 75 to 97. 10 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 98 to 107. 11 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 42 to 45. 12 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, paras. 197 to 205. 13 Cf. Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310, paras. 177 to 192. 14 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 128 to 139. 15 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 140 to 148. 16 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 198 to 213 and 224 to 230. 17 2