82. The right to health is also recognized in Article 145 of the Honduran Constitution. 102 The Court likewise observes a broad regional consensus in the consolidation of the right to health, which is explicitly recognized in the constitutions and domestic laws of numerous States of the region, including Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. 103 83. In relation to the foregoing, the Court recalls that the general obligation to protect health translates into the State’s duty to ensure access to essential health services by guaranteeing effective and quality medical care and promoting the improvement of the population’s health. 104 This right encompasses timely and appropriate health care in accordance with the principles of availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality, the application of which will depend on the prevailing conditions in each State. 105 The fulfilment of the State’s obligation to respect and guarantee this right requires it to pay special attention to vulnerable and marginalized groups. Such efforts must be implemented progressively, in accordance with available resources and the applicable domestic legislation. 106 84. Regarding the health care of persons who work in underwater fishing activities, 107 the Court notes that PAHO’s considerations provide an authoritative reference to clarify some international obligations of the State with respect to health care for persons who suffer diving accidents while engaged in underwater fishing activities, and particularly the victims in this case. These considerations establish that Miskito divers who suffer accidents should receive health care consisting of primary prevention (which includes the protection of persons); secondary prevention (which allows for the care of people at risk, including early diagnosis and timely treatment), and tertiary prevention (which involves care for sick people, including rehabilitation and reinsertion into the labor market). Thus, divers suffering from decompression sickness or other diving-related illnesses must be immediately provided with 102 Article 145 states: “The right to the protection of one's health is hereby recognized. It is everyone's duty to participate in the promotion and preservation of individual and community health. The State shall maintain a satisfactory environment for the protection of everyone's health.” 103 Among the constitutional norms of the States Parties to the American Convention are: Argentina (art. 10); Barbados (art. 17.2.A); Bolivia (art. 35); Brazil (art. 196); Chile (art. 19) Colombia (art. 49); Costa Rica (art. 46); Ecuador (art. 32); El Salvador (art. 65); Guatemala (arts. 93 and 94); Haiti (art. 19); Mexico (art. 4); Nicaragua (art. 59); Panama (art. 109); Paraguay (art. 68); Peru (art. 70); Dominican Republic (art. 61); Suriname (art. 36); Uruguay (art. 44), and Venezuela (art. 83). Cf. Constitutional Chamber, Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica, Resolution No. 13505 – 2006, of September 12, 2006, Considering paragraph III; Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-177 of 1998; Supreme Court of Mexico, Jurisprudence Thesis 8/2019 (10ª). Right to the Protection of Health. Individual and social dimension; Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Judgment No. 0012-09-SIS-CC, October 8, 2009. 104 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 118, and Case Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 101. Cf. Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, supra, paras. 120 and 121, and Case Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 101. 105 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. 107, and Case Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 101. 106 107 The Court has indicated that in each case it is necessary to consider the specific aspects to be taken into account in determining the State’s obligations related to the medical treatment that persons should receive, noting that medical science is continually advancing and, consequently, the references cited here as an illustration do not exclude or call into question more recent discoveries. In addition, the Court takes no position on technical discussions or matters relating to the medical and biological sciences. Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 39, and Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 78. 29