indicated in Circular No.7, when someone’s life and health depended on it; and that no change in circumstances had been proven such as to justify the replacement of RHD.37 39. Isapre appealed against the ruling of the CAC, alleging that RHD legally does not apply to chronic diseases, that CAEC is not a vested right, and that access to RHD is restricted and exceptional.38 On May 9, 2011, the CSJ overturned the decision of the CAC and found in favor of the Isapre. In reaching that decision, the CSJ reasoned that "with regard to so-called in-home care -Circular IF No. 7 (...)- this modality of medical benefit is not appropriate in the case of chronic diseases, the kind of pathology suffered by the patient”; therefore, "the Isapre (...) was able legitimately to deny the application of catastrophic insurance, since it has acted in accordance with the standards that govern the granting of that exceptional benefit.”39 4. The proceeding before the Superintendency of Health 40. On January 10, 2012, the petitioners filed a claim with the Superintendency seeking the reinstatement of RHD. 40 The Isapre answered the claim on January 11, 2012, asserting the legality of the decision to lift RHD by reason of the chronic nature of Martina’s condition.41 The petitioners countered, arguing that the Isapre did not take into consideration the special protections under international law, related to the right to life, humane treatment, health, children, and persons with disabilities, that govern such matters, and that according to the Constitutional Court, Isapres have the obligation to respect and protect rights, among other arguments already described.42 41. After the debate on evidentiary matters,43 testimony was heard from witnesses on March 3, 2012. The Commission notes that Dr. Vargas, 44 who reportedly signed the expert opinion from which the chronicity of Martina’s condition was deduced, denied that deduction and said that the recommended treatment was RHD, not hospitalization. In a like sense were the statements of Dr. Darrigrande,45 the treating physician, and of the kinesiologist Berrios.46 42. On April 3, 2012, the National Institute of Human Rights of Chile appeared in the proceeding to say that "home medical care should be restored, since its suspension entails a violation of fundamental rights, leaving children in a serious situation of vulnerability (...) in particular, the following rights are affected: 1. Right to health (...) 2. Rights to health of children.”47 43. On April 19, 2012, the Judge-Arbitrator ruled in favor of the reinstatement of RHD for Martina. According to her decision, the hospital regimen was neither feasible nor advisable, despite the chronic nature of her illness, since, given the patient's state of health, it was clear that she would be re-institutionalized and 37. Annex X, Ruling of the CAC on the application for protection, January 26, 2011, Appended to the initial petition of November 4, 2011. 38. Annex X. Isapre’s appeal against the ruling of the CAC of November 15, 2010. Appended to the petitioners’ brief of March 6, 2017. 39. Annex X, Appellate ruling of the CSJ of May 9, 2011. Appended to the initial petition of November 4, 2011. 40. Annex X. Claim, Arbitration case 451658-2011, January 10, 2012. Appended to the petitioners’ brief of March 6, 2017. 41. Annex X. Answer to claim, Arbitration case 451658-2011, January 11, 2012. Appended to the petitioners’ brief of March 6, 2017. 42. Annex X. Comments on answer to claim, Arbitration case 451658-2011, January 16, 2012. Appended to the petitioners’ brief of March 6, 2017. 43. Annex X. Comments on the evidence for the claim, Arbitration case 451658-2011, January 29, 2012. Appended to the petitioners’ brief of March 6, 2017; Annex X, Incorporation of the evidence for the respondent, Arbitration case 451658-2011, March 5, 2012. Appended to the petitioners’ brief of March 6, 2017. 44. Annex X, Statement of Dr. Vargas, March 7, 2012. Appended to the petitioners’ brief of March 6, 2017. 45. Annex X, Statement of Dr. Darrigrande, March 7, 2012. Appended to the petitioners’ brief of March 6, 2017. Dr. Darrigrande said that "[Martina] could be hospitalized, but it would be inexpedient for her health and for her quality of life and that of her family. (...) "the main drawback is intrahospital infection." 46. Annex X, Statement of the kinesiologist Berrios, March 7, 2012. Appended to the petitioners’ brief of March 6, 2017. The kinesiologist Berrios said: “Martina’s health has been fairly stable for a couple of years in the context of her pathology. There were changes when the number of kinesthetic sessions was reduced, specifically in the respiratory area. That was when the Isapre took away [the CAEC], and in order to maintain [the RHD] that decision was made. This situation changed after two weeks, because the two daily sessions resumed in line with Martina's needs." He also said that kinesthetic sessions could be done at a hospital "but the risk of contamination and cross-infections is much higher for Martina." 47. Annex X. Appearance of the Director of the Institute of Human Rights, Lorena Fríes Monleón, April 3, 2012. Appended to the petitioners’ brief of March 6, 2017. 8