66. It is important to note the analysis made in the Judgment regarding the manner in which Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval’s right to health was affected by the medical attention she received, given that the Inter-American Court directly links the study of the right to health with Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention. Thus, the Judgment affirmed that the rights to life and personal integrity are directly linked with human health care. It then specified that, “based on the principle of non-discrimination, the right to life of persons deprived of liberty also requires the State to ensure their physical and mental health, specifically through the provision of regular medical examinations and, when required, of medical treatment that is adequate, timely, and, where appropriate, specialized to meet the special care needs of the detained persons in question.”88 67. However, as I have stated on numerous occasions, I consider that the right to health should have been addressed separately, based on the proven facts and the effects suffered by the victim owing to poor medical care, from the moment of her incarceration in the COF, until the time of her death. In this regard, from my perspective, since the victim’s right to health is directly involved, the Court could have addressed the implications of these effects, which could even have led it to declare a violation of the obligation to guarantee the right to health under Article 26 of the American Convention. 68. The fact that the direct violation of this social right was not claimed by the InterAmerican Commission, or by the representatives of the victims, does not represent an obstacle to the analysis of whether there was a violation of the obligation to guarantee the right to health derived from Article 26 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Pact of San José. As I pointed out in the Case of Suárez Peralta (2013): 92. […]. The absence of the explicit citing of the violation of a right or freedom does not prevent the Inter-American Court from analyzing it based on the general principle of law iura novit curia, “which international case law has used repeatedly, (understanding it) in the sense that the judge has the power and even the obligation to apply the pertinent legal provisions in a litigation, even when the parties do not cite it expressly.” […] 94. There is no reason not to examine the possible violation of the guarantee of a social right, derived from Article 26 in relation to Article 1(1) of the Pact of San José, even though it was not expressly cited by one of the parties. It is the obligation of the Inter-American Court to apply the iura novit curia principle — and the preceding paragraph reveals that it constitutes the Inter-American Court’s practice with regard to civil rights – if, based on the factual framework of the case and the proven facts, clear implications can be observed for the right to health, as in this case, that arise from the impact of medical malpractice with the State’s responsibility on the health of [one of the victims …]. […] 96. Accordingly, it is valid for the Inter-American Court, in application of the iura novit curia principle and based on the factual framework of the case, to be able to analyze, directly and autonomously, the guarantee of the right to health — and not only in connection with the civil rights that it declared violated – in the understanding that the right to health is one of the Cf. Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016, Series C No. 312, para. 215. 87 Cf. Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016, Series C No. 312, paras. 170 and 171. 88 25