policy in the area of the protection of the social rights in a democratic society. For the Commission and the victims’ representatives the challenge lies in being able to prove that the State effectively adopted retrogressive measures that affected the realization of one or several ESCER protected by Article 26 of the American Convention. This will involve formulating arguments that demonstrate the explicit or implicit recognition of a right protected under Article 26 of the Pact of San José, as well as the submission of the necessary evidence to prove that the State’s actions truly involved an unjustified lack of action and/or a retrogression in the realization of that right. Meanwhile, the State must justify that its actions have tended towards the full realization of the right or that they were not retrogressive, and if they were retrogressive, prove that this retrogressivity was justified based on the standards recognized in international law. 9. In any case, States must continue their efforts to ensure the transparency of the way in which the ESCER are protected in their territory. Here, it is worth underlining the June 4, 2012, resolution of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in which the States adopted the document “Progress Indicators for Measuring Rights under the Protocol of San Salvador,” which contains the standards and criteria adopted by the States Parties to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter “Protocol of San Salvador”) to measure compliance with the rights established in the Protocol. 26 10. These criteria form the basis for the States to present information on compliance with their obligations in the area of the rights contained in the Protocol of San Salvador,27 and can also be important elements to evaluate State compliance with the ESCER in relation to Article 26 of the Convention. Evidently, as the judgment asserts, 28 the competence of the Court to examine violations of the Protocol of San Salvador is limited by the provisions of Article 19(6) of that instrument. But this does not mean that the information presented by the States in their national reports cannot be used as evidence, either by the Commission, the victims’ representatives, or the State. The important point – for the purposes of this opinion – is that the allegations concerning the failure to realize the ESCER are formulated as solid legal arguments, and based on the data and other evidentiary material that proves the way in which the State has complied – or failed to comply - with the effective realization of the rights in the terms of Article 26 of the American Convention. B. Some decisions of high national jurisdictions related to the mandate of progressivity and the protection of the right to health of people living with HIV Cf. OAS, “Adoption of Progress Indicators for Measuring Rights under the Protocol of San Salvador”, Resolution AG/RES. 2713 (XLII-O/12) adopted at the second plenary session on June 4, 2012, Point 1 of the resolution is available at: http//www.oas.org/en/sare/social-inclusion/protocol-ssv/docs/pss-res-2713-en.doc. GTPSS, “Progress Indicators for Measuring Rights under the Protocol of San Salvador,” December 12, 2011, OEA/Ser.L/XXV.2.1, paras. 15, 67 and 68. In the case of Gonzales Lluy, the Court considered that the Protocol of San Salvador referred to the realization of the rights in a context of the development of the health system, and also that health goods and services should be appropriate from a medical and scientific perspective. Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 172 and footnote 202. In Poblete Vilches, the Court used these indicators in light of Article 26 of the American Convention and to establish the existence of a prohibition of retrogressivity in relation to the realization achieved in these rights. Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, paras. 104 and footnote 133. 26 27 Op. cit. AG/RES. 2713 (XLII-O/12), point 5. Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 89. 28 5