37 117. The Court has repeatedly stated that the right to life is a fundamental human right, the enjoyment and exercise of which is a prerequisite for the exercise of all other rights.108 Personal integrity is essential for the enjoyment of human life. In turn, the rights to life and humane treatment are directly and immediately linked to human health care. Also, the Additional Protocol to the Amreican Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights sets forth that everyone has the right to health, which is defined as the enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental and social well-being; it further states that health is a public good (Article 10).109 118. The Court has held that States Parties to the American Convention have the fundamental duty to respect and guarantee the rights and freedoms established in the Convention, pursuant to Article 1(1) thereof.110 Article 2 sets forth the general duty of the States Parties to adopt legislative or other measures as may be necessary to enforce the rights and freedoms enshrined in such instrument. 119. The assumptions of the State’s liability can be generated when a body or state authority or a public institution, can affect unlawfully, either by acts or omissions,111 some of the legal interests protected by the American Convention. It also may by generated from actions carried out by private parties, such as when a State excludes to prevent conducts of third parties from impairing those legal interests.112 By this order of considerations, when related to the essential jurisdiction of the supervision and regulation of rendering the services of public interest, such as health, by private or public entities (as is the case of a private hospital), the state responsibility is generated by the omission of the duty to supervise the rendering of the public service to protect the mentioned right. 120. Special duties derive from these general obligations to respect and guarantee rights, which are ascertainable on the basis of the particular protection needs of the legal person, either on account of his personal situation or of the specific circumstances in which he find himself.113 108 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales), supra note 38, para. 144; Case of MonteroAranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 63; Case of Zambrano-Velez et al., supra note 9, para. 78; and Case of Escué-Zapata, supra note 12, para. 40. 109 Cf. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article XI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. 110 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez, supra note 39, para. 91; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and GarcíaSanta Cruz, supra note 13, para. 79; Case of Zambrano-Velez et al., supra note 9, para. 114; and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 9, para. 145. 111 Cf. Case of the Last Temptation of Christ (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 72; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paras. 111 and 112; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 11. 112 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez, supra note 14, para. 172; and Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 19, para. 85. 113 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 111, para. 111; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C