judgment. These standards are based – as regards the medical aspects – on the expert opinion of institutions such as UNAIDS and the World Health Organization. 37. In addition to the above, the judgment 86 ordered certain guarantees of non-repetition the purpose of which is for the State to improve the care for people living with HIV in Guatemala, whether or not they are victims in the case. 87 This is an aspect that should be stressed because it seeks to promote those systemic changes required for the State to comply more effectively with its obligations in relation to protection of the right to health. 38. From this perspective, the judgment ordered the implementation of mechanisms of periodic monitoring and supervision of public hospitals to ensure that they provide comprehensive health care to people living with HIV. 88 In addition, and of special relevance, it ordered that the State design a mechanism to ensure the accessibility, availability and quality of antiretroviral drugs, diagnostic tests, and health services for people living with HIV, with the participation of the medical community and other sectors. 89 These are measures that seek to encourage the State institutions, based on discussions and dialogue with other sectors involved in medical care, to design strategies and actions. These types of mechanisms resulting from discussion and dialogue are not unknown in the constitutionalization of social rights90 that seeks to create effective ways to convert the ESCER into a reality, so that they are not only enshrined in judicial rulings91 and are, also, a Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 224 to 230. 86 The inter-American judgment – by its very nature and by the form in which the inter-American system is designed – fulfills a dual function: on the one hand it provides measures of reparation for the specific situation (restitution, satisfaction, investigation, and of a financial nature), but it also has a function of providing reparations to ensure that the facts do not occur again (guarantees of non-repetition). This broad concept covering the measures of non-repetition is what leads to the restitutio in integrum, unique in international law. Evidently, in a national jurisdiction, the inter-American judgment has more general effects than those involved in each specific case; the purpose of measures of non-repetition that are ordered in each case is to provide the authorities with parameters to make redress to the possible victims, in similar circumstances to those that the Inter-American Court is able to examine. 87 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 225. 88 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 226. 89 SEE, IN THIS REGARD, THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA: GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA & OTHERS V GROOTBOOM & OTHERS 2000 (11) BCLR 1169; SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE NATION OF ARGENTINA: MENDOZA, BEATRIZ SILVIA ET AL. V. THE STATE ET AL. REF. DAMAGES (HARM ARISING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION OF THE MATANZA RIACHUELO RIVER),” FILE NO. CSJ 1569/2004 (40-M)/CS2; SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER, PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 196 OF 2001; CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF COLOMBIA: JUDGMENT T-025, RAPPORTEUR: JUSTICE MANUEL JOSÉ CEPEDA ESPINOSA, JANUARY 22, 2004; JUDGMENT T-760/08, RAPPORTEUR: JUSTICE MANUEL JOSÉ CEPEDA ESPINOSA, JULY 31, 2008; JUDGMENT T762/15, RAPPORTEUR: JUSTICE GLORIA STELLA ORTIZ DELGADO, DECEMBER 16, 2015; JUDGMENT T-622/16, RAPPORTEUR: JUSTICE JORGE IVÁN PALACIO PALACIO, NOVEMBER 10, 2016; JUDGMENT T-302/17, RAPPORTEUR: JUSTICE AQUILES ARRIETA GÓMEZ, MAY 8, 2017, AND JUDGMENT T-080/18, RAPPORTEUR: JUSTICE CARLOS LIBARDO BERNAL PULIDO, MARCH 2, 2018. 90 It should be noted that the fact that the courts ruled on the violation or the possible violation of social rights does not signify that the judiciary is attempting to establish public policies or supplant any of the domestic powers (for example, the legislature); it is clear that the purpose of the judiciary is not to legislate; however, its purpose as a power is to ensure that the rights contained in the Constitution or in domestic laws – to which it is committed – are effective. This has been ruled on by the Constitutional Court of Colombia (Judgment T-025, Rapporteur: Justice Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, January 22, 2004) and the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Amparo review 378/2014, Rapporteur: Justice Alberto Pérez Dayán, Secretary: Georgina Laso de la Vega Romero, p. 58). 91 15