time it is invoked. The absolute protection of a civil or social right in any litigation is not derived from its justiciability. Every case, whether it relates to a civil or social right, must be decided making an analysis of imputation and to verify how the obligations of respect and guarantee function in relation to each situation that is alleged to have violated a specific right. IV. THE IURA NOVIT CURIA PRINCIPLE AND THE DIRECT JUSTICIABILITY OF THE RIGHT TO HEALTH IN THIS CASE 88. In the instant case, the Inter-American Court declared the international responsibility of the State owing to: (a) the errors, delays and omissions in the criminal investigation, which led to the declaration of the prescription of the case in the proceedings; in other words, owing to violation of effective judicial protection (Articles 8(1) and 25(1), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention), and (b) the failure to guarantee and prevent a violation of the right to personal integrity (Article 5, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Pact of San José), owing to the absence of State supervision and control of the clinics (public and private) where one of the victims was attended. In both analyses, especially in the second, the right to health was discussed, without considering this right to be an essential aspect of this case, and without considering its full justiciability, despite the citation of numerous international instruments and sources on this social right. 89. In the Judgment an analysis was made of different aspects of the protection of the right to health in connection with the civil rights that were declared to have been violated: A) Regarding the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, owing to the “errors, delays and omissions in the criminal investigation” that “reveal that the State authorities did not act with due diligence or in keeping with the obligations to investigate and to ensure effective judicial protection within a reasonable time, in order to guarantee to Melba Suárez Peralta a reparation enabling her to have access to the medical treatment required by her health problems” 158 (underlining added); and B) Regarding the failure to guarantee and to prevent the violation of the right to personal integrity (Article 5(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention) of one of the victims, owing to the absence of supervision and control, “as regards both control of the services provided in the State facility, the Polyclinic of the Guayas Traffic Commission, and those provided in the private institution, the Minchala Clinic,” so that the InterAmerican Court “considered that “this resulted in a situation of risk, which the State was aware of, that materialized in adverse effects on the health of Melba Suárez Peralta” 159 (underlining added). 90. In the Judgment, the analysis of the adverse effects on the right to health of Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta based on certain precedents of the Inter-American Court by means of the connectivity of rights is particularly relevant. The examination of the right to health was immersed in the effects on the right to personal integrity established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Pact of 158 Para. 122 of the Judgment. In addition, the expert opinion of Dr. Laura Pautassi is useful concerning the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, that in cases such as this one, where civil compensation is subject to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the obligation to investigate within a reasonable time is increased depending on the health situation of the person concerned; see para. 102, and footnote 135 of the Judgment. 159 Para. 154 of the Judgment. 31