CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT CASE OF CHINCHILLA SANDOVAL V. GUATEMALA JUDGMENT OF FEBRUARY 29, 2016 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) INTRODUCTION: THE “RIGHT TO HEALTH” OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY 1. I issue this opinion to justify the reasons why I consider that the decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “ICHR” or “Inter-American Court”) should have included a direct and explicit analysis of the violation of the “right to health” in the context of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “Pact of San José”). This would have afforded the Inter-American Court an opportunity to contribute additional elements to the Inter-American standards on accessibility, reasonable accommodation and protection of the “right to health” of persons with disabilities deprived of liberty. 2. It is not the intention of this concurring opinion to put forward arguments on the manner in which the “right to health” should be interpreted, based on the application of Article 26 of the American Convention; I have discussed these elements on other occasions;1 on the contrary, my arguments focus on showing how, in the case sub judice, the right to health is related to each of the facts that gave rise to the violations during Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval’s confinement in the Women’s Orientation Center (hereinafter “the COF”). 3. Unlike other cases examined by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in which converging matters have been addressed, that is, the failure to guarantee the right to On the justiciability of the right to health, see: Concurring opinion of Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013, Series C No. 262; and Concurring opinion of Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot in the Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C. No. 298. Similarly, though in relation to the justiciability of the right to work, see: Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Roberto F. Caldas and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot in the Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2015. Series C No. 296. 1