28 Chamber added that as no such sentence existed in this action, a fundamental requirement was lacking and therefore, all proceedings up this point were null and void.168 V. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. TGGL’s Right to Physical Integrity vis-à-vis the Right to Health (Articles 5, 19, and 1.1 of the American Convention) 134. Article 5, so far as is relevant, provides: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 135. Article 19 of the American Convention states: Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state. 136. Article 1.1 of the American Convention provides: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 137. The Commission will examine the facts, as established, in the light of these provisions in the following order: 1. general considerations on the duty to ensure the right to humane treatment vis-à-vis the right to health; 2. special obligations to fulfill the duty to ensure the right to physical integrity vis-à-vis the right to health in the case of children; and 3. examination of the specific case. 1. General Considerations on the Duty to Ensure the Right to Humane Treatment vis-àvis the Right to Health 138. The Inter-American Court has repeatedly interpreted that Article 5.1 of the American Convention is “directly and closely linked with human health care” 169 and “the lack of adequate medical attention” may contribute to its breach. 170 This intrinsic relationship constitutes a manifestation of the interdependence and indivisibility that exists between the civil and political rights and economic, social and 168 Annex 1. Court File. Civil Action No. 323 05. Superior Court of Justice of Cuenca. First Chamber. Decision of the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cuenca of May 18, 2006. Folios 17 – 20. 169 IA Court HR Case of Suarez Peralta v. Ecuador, Judgment of May 21 2013, para. 130. Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al., above, para. 117, and Case of Vera Vera and another v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 43. Regarding the regulation and Inter-American developments of the elements of the right to health which may be relevant to the analysis of cases such as this one, the Court restated: “Article XI of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man establishes that every person has the right ‘to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to [...] medical care, to the extent permitted by public and coummunity resources.’” Meanwhile, Article 45 of the OAS Charter requires all Member States ‘to dedicate every effort [...to] [d]evelop [...] and efficient social security policy.” In this regard, Article 10 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Areal of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Ecuador on March 25, 1993, stipulates that everyone has the right to health, understood to mean the enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental and social well-being, and indicates that health is to the public good. In addition, in July 2012, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States emphsized the need for high quality health facilities, goods and services, which required the presence of trained medical personnel, as well as satisfactory conditions of hygiene.” 170 IA Court HR Case of Suarez Peralta v. Ecuador, Judgment of May 21 2013, para. 130. Cfr. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 157, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series. C no. 226, para. 44.