of all the rights in keeping with the evident progress that can be noted in the domestic sphere and in international human rights law. 12. Bearing in mind these initial premises, I now find it appropriate to examine: (i) the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health, based on their interdependence and indivisibility with civil and political rights (paragraphs 13 to 32); (ii) the interpretative mechanisms of Article 26 for the direct justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights (paragraphs 33 to 87); (iii) the iura novit curia principle and the direct justiciability of the right to health in this case (paragraphs 88 to 96), and (iv) some concluding considerations (paragraphs 97 to 108). II. THE JUSTICIABILITY OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO HEALTH, BASED ON THEIR INTERDEPENDENCE AND INDIVISIBILITY WITH CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS A) Precedents and current state of the debate 13. The Inter-American Court has had the occasion to rule previously on some of the implications of the protection of the right to health. In some cases in relation to the rights to life or to personal integrity, 27 in others in the context of the concept of a “decent life,” 28 and in others based on the medical care provided in detention centers or similar institutions; 29 even, in yet other cases, in relation to sexual or reproductive rights. 30 14. In very few cases has it analyzed the implications of Article 26 of the American Convention, generally limiting itself to interpreting certain normative parts of this treatybased provision in relation to economic, social and cultural rights. It has never declared, directly and autonomously, the violation of the said provision. 31 27 Irrespective of specific references in provisional measures and in advisory opinions, the following judgments are relevant: Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012, Series C No. 246; Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011, Series C No. 226; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010, Series C No. 214; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007, Series C No. 171, and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006, Series C No. 149. 28 Cf. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005, Series C No. 125; Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004, Series C No. 112, and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. 29 Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226; Case of Vera Vera et al., supra; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, and Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute,” supra. 30 Cf. 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; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010, Series C No. 215; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006, Series C No. 146. 31 The Inter-American Court has referred to Article 26 of the American Convention and analyzed it specifically on very few occasions. However, it did so in the following cases: Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra, paras. 99 a 103; Case of the Yean 6