Clearly, the main content of the debate refers to the victim’s health, which was harmed, and consequently, to her right to health, contemplated in the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which constitutes the legal patrimony of all the citizens of our Continent. It is important to clarify that Guatemala is a party to the Protocol of San Salvador and to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) since May 19, 1988,1 and therefore, these rights of the victim were recognized thanks, in great measure, to the diplomatic and legislative efforts of the State declared responsible in this Judgment. It so happens that the Judgment, in its conclusions and operative paragraphs, specifically in relation to the deterioration of the victim’s health, declares that the State is responsible for its failure to comply with the obligation to guarantee the rights to personal integrity and to life, recognized in Articles 5(1) and 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Furthermore, the victim’s incarceration and her disabilities led to the conclusion that the State is also responsible for the violation of the right to nondiscrimination. Unlike what appears to be the case at first glance, the Judgement’s silence on the right to health in the conclusions and in the operative paragraphs is barely apparent. Paragraph 165 of the Judgment announces that the Court will determine whether the State fulfilled its obligations to guarantee the alleged victim’s rights to personal integrity and to life, offering a careful analysis of: 1) the State’s obligation to provide health care and medical treatment to persons deprived of liberty; 2) the duty to provide adequate treatment for Mrs. Chinchilla’s diabetes and related ailments; 3) the duty to ensure the accessibility of the conditions of detention in response to Mrs. Chinchilla’s disability; and 4) the response of the administrative authorities on the day of Mrs. Chinchilla’s death. The right to health appears, therefore, in the justification of the Judgment, as a necessary precursor for full compliance with the obligations related to the right to life and personal integrity. The conviction for the violation of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the Convention depends, ultimately, on the prior analysis and confirmation of the failure to comply with the right to health, established in Article 26 of the Convention and Article 10(1) of the Additional Protocol. In that sense, the right to health is present in the conclusions and operative paragraphs, but in a weakened form. It loses its status as a right and is converted into factual grounds for the application to the case of the rights established in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention. Therefore, the violation of the right to health provides the grounds for condemning the State’s actions, although not in an autonomous manner, but as a necessary step or stage to conclude with the direct violation of the Convention. The assessment of the right to health, albeit only at its interface with the right to personal integrity and to life, is not new in the case law of this Court, 2 which understands that such 1 https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&clang=_en Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 117. See also, Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article XI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 10(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12(1) and 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Also, see General Comment 14 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. “The right to the highest attainable standard 2 2