the alleged victims did not have access to the necessary medications to fight off the opportunistic diseases they were afflicted with. 26. Petitioners alleged that even though the deceased alleged victims did eventually receive antiviral treatment, they lacked regular access every six months, as established in national and international protocols, to the indispensable viral load, CD4 cell count and genotypic and phenotypic testing to monitor the infection, adjust the treatment regime when required and thus prevent the appearance of opportunistic diseases. They further contended that the Guatemalan State did not conduct any investigation into these deaths, even though their written records indicated that it would do so. 27. The petitioners also alleged that the State violated the rights to life and humane treatment of the surviving alleged victims. They argued that the State failed to meet the positive obligation of preventing irreparable harm to the lives, integrity and health of the alleged victims, because it failed to adopt the necessary measures to provide them with adequate medical treatment, thus placing their lives in immediate jeopardy. The petitioners claimed that the duty of the State to adopt positive measures is heightened with regard to the protection of the lives and health of persons living with HIV/AIDS. They contended that the right to life and humane treatment are undeniably linked to the right to health in the instant case and, therefore, it is binding on the State to effectively provide public health services. 28. They alleged that up until 2006 and 2007, the State did not provide any type of medication and treatment to the alleged victims and that, on the contrary, legislative measures were taken, which hampered access to antiretroviral drugs, particularly to the generic drugs that are less costly but have the same effects. They further argued that the legislation tends to protect new products on the Guatemalan market manufactured by transnational laboratories, while restricting accessibility and production of generic products, which are imported or produced in national laboratories, whose prices are notably lower than the brand-name products. 29. The petitioners claimed that the alleged victims received temporary treatment from an international non-profit. They also argued that the fact that some of the victims were diagnosed by a nonprofit agency does not relieve the State of its obligation to supplement and oversee the actions of these private entities. Additionally, they rejected the arguments of the State regarding the lack of medical treatment because of the government’s lack of economic resources. They stressed that the State cannot exonerate itself of its international obligations for economic reasons. 30. According to the petitioners, the alleged victims stopped receiving treatment from the organization Doctors Without Borders from 2006 to 2007, as it was of a temporary nature. They further noted that their cases were transferred to public health care facilities. They contended that since that time, up to the present date, the treatment provided by the State to the alleged victims has been highly inadequate and is not comprehensive in nature. 31. The petitioners assert that for persons living with HIV/AIDS, comprehensive treatment including antiretroviral drugs and technologies such as viral load and CD4 cell count testing is a guarantee of life, both in quality as well as in length. They explained that every person living with HIV/AIDS requires specific medical treatment, which includes at least antiretroviral therapy and education in order to make the most of the drugs, viral load testing and treatment of opportunistic diseases. They noted that antiretroviral medicines, which are a combination of drugs that block the reproduction of HIV/AIDS inside the body, are considered the ideal treatment to prevent the progression of HIV/AIDS and, in so doing, to achieve a clear improvement in patients’ health and for them to lead a normal work and social life for a long time. 32. They maintain that because of the deaths of the eight alleged victims for lack of treatment from the State, it can be presumed that the surviving alleged victims are at serious risk. They contend that the inadequate medical treatment received by the alleged victims from the State has worsened their health conditions. They reiterated that most of the surviving alleged victims have been afflicted with opportunistic diseases, which through testing and adequate medication were easily preventable. Some of the diseases cited 5