4. Based on the above, as well as on reasons outlined on other occasions in this regard,18 I am issuing this separate opinion in order to reflect on some of the relevant aspects that arise from this judgment: (I) the principle of progressivity and the regional experience in this area (paras. 5-30); (II) the intersectional discrimination against two pregnant women living with HIV (paras. 31-34); (III) the measures of reparation ordered to rehabilitate the victims in the case and to avoid future violations of the right to health of people living with HIV in Guatemala (paras. 35-43), and (IV) conclusions (paras. 44-47). I. THE PRINCIPLE OF PROGRESSIVITY A. The international responsibility of the State for violating the principle of progressivity in this case 5. The scope of the principle of progressivity — on which the determination of the international responsibility of the State in this case is founded — is based on the line of jurisprudence that began in the case of Acevedo Buendía et al.19 In that case, the Court recognized that the realization of the ESCER could not be achieved in the short term and that, therefore, a flexibility mechanism was required, reflecting the realities of the real world and the difficulties involved for any country in ensuring their full realization. The Court also asserted that, in the context of this flexibility, as regards the time frame and the methods of compliance, the State had an obligation to act; that is to take steps and adopt the necessary measures to respond to the requirements for the realization of the rights involved, always to the extent of the economic and financial resources available for compliance with its international commitments.20 In Acevedo Buendía, the Court established that, in correlation to progressivity there is an obligation – although a conditioned one – of non-retrogressivity, that should not always be understood as a prohibition of measures that restrict the exercise of a right.21 See the opinions I have issued on this matter in relation to the following judgments: Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261; Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2015. Series C No. 296; Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298; 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 I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329; Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325; Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340; Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348. 18 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 102. In addition to the case of Acevedo Buendía et al., the case law of the Inter-American Court has addressed the content of the obligation of progressivity in the cases of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile and in the present case. See: Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 103. 19 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 102. 20 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 103. In Acevedo Buendía, the Court referred to General Comment No. 3 to indicate that “any deliberately retrogressive measures in that regard would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the [International] Covenant [on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights] and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources.” In this regard, it should be noted that United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter, “the CESCR”) has modified the standard for the evaluation of retrogressive measures, so that States must demonstrate, among other matters, that the measures are: (a) provisional; (b) necessary; (c) non-discriminatory or that they do not disproportionately 21 3