Inter-American Court to include aspects such as access to reproductive health services with acceptable conditions, including the confidentiality of medical information.110 117. Regarding this, the Inter-American Court has found that the information collected by a physician during the exercise of his or her profession is protected by professional confidentiality, meaning that physicians have the right and the duty to keep that information confidential.111 118. The European Court of Human Rights has found that disclosure of medical information on a person’s pregnancy, health, and medical treatment constitutes an invasion of privacy and violation of the European Convention when it is not done according to law, does not have a legitimate aim, or is not necessary in a democratic society.112 The European Court has found that if health information is not confidential, people who need medical care could be discouraged from seeking proper treatment, thereby putting their own health at risk.113 119. Also, the Human Rights Committee has stated that “another area where States may fail to respect women’s privacy relates to their reproductive functions, for example, (...) where States impose a legal duty upon doctors and other health personnel to report cases of women who have undergone abortion.”114 The Committee has indicated that this “may inhibit women from seeking medical treatment, thereby endangering their lives.” 115 States must thus ensure that the professional confidentiality of medical professionals is respected, along with the confidentiality of patients in cases related to abortions.116 120. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has found that violations of medical confidentiality in the form of denunciations of women by medical personnel when evidence of illegal abortion is found and the practice of attempting to obtain confessions as a condition of potentially life-saving medical treatment after abortion constitute abuse and mistreatment of women seeking reproductive health services.117 121. Article 26 of the American Convention establishes that States Party must progressively develop the rights contained therein. Both bodies of the Inter-American system 118 have reaffirmed their competence to rule on potential violations of Article 26 of the American Convention in the framework of the individual petitions and cases system. 122. The Commission recognizes that the interpretation of Article 26 of the Convention and specific determination of its scope and content can involve certain interpretive complexities. Thus, the Commission finds that analysis of a specific case according to Article 26 of the American Convention should be conducted on two levels. First, it needs to be established if the right in question in the case is derived from “the rights Inter-American Court. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (in vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, párr.143. 111 Inter-American Court. Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 21, 2016. Series C No. 319; para. 237; Inter-American Court. Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, párr.101. 112 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Radu v. the Republic of Moldova, Judgment of April 15, 2014, para. 27 and 32 113 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Biriuk, v. Lithuania, Judgment of November 25, 2008, para. 43. 114 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 28, Article 3, The equality of rights between men and women, 68th Period of Sessions, UN Doc. HRI/Gen/1/Rev.7, 2000, párr.20. 115 Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Chile. 30/03/99, CCPR/C/79/Add.104, para. 15. 116 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the seventh periodic report on El Salvador, May 9, 2018, CCPR/C/ SLV/CO/7, para 16. 117 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, February 1, 2013, A/HRC/22/53, para. 46. 118 For example, see several admissibility reports in which the possible violation of Article 26 of the Convention has been admitted: Report 29/01. Case 12.249. Jorge Odir Miranda Cortez et al. El Salvador, March 7, 2001; and Report 70/04. Petition 667/01. Admissibility. Jesús Manuel Naranjo Cárdenas et al. (Pensioners of the Venezuelan Aviation - VIASA). Venezuela, October 13, 2004. Likewise, see the decision on the merits regarding Article 26 in Report 38/09. Case 12.670. National Association of Ex-employees of the Peruvian Social Security Institute et al. v. Peru. March 27, 2009. Likewise, the Court reaffirmed that competence in the Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of July 1, 2009, Inter-American Court. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359. Paras. 74 - 97. 110 22