other diseases,” and “[s]atisfaction of the health needs of the highest risk groups and of those whose poverty makes them the most vulnerable.” 104. As in the case of the obligations established by the OAS Charter, the American Declaration and the Protocol of San Salvador, in the universal sphere the ICESCR understands the right to health as “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,” and recognizes the State obligation to adopt measures for “[t]he prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases.”110 105. In this regard, the Court has recognized that health is a fundamental human right essential for the adequate exercise of the other human rights, and that every individual has the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health that allows him or her to live a full life, understanding health not only as the absence of disease or illness, but also as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, derived from a lifestyle that allows the individual to achieve an overall balance. The Court has specified that the general obligation to protect health results in the State obligation to ensure access to essential health services, guaranteeing good quality and efficient medical care, and to promote the improvement of the health of the population as a whole. 111 106. The Court has also established that implementation of this obligation begins with a duty of regulation and, therefore, has indicated that States are responsible for regulating the provision of services (both public and private) and executing national programs to achieve good quality services on a permanent basis. 112 The Court has taken into account General Comment No. 14 of the CESCR on the right to the highest attainable standard of health.113 In particular, in this document the Committee underlined that the right extended not only to timely and appropriate health care, but also the following interrelated and essential elements of availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality, the precise application of which would depend on the conditions prevailing in each State: (a) Availability. Functioning public health and health-care facilities, goods and services, as well as programmes, have to be available in sufficient quantity within the State party. The precise nature of the facilities, goods and services will vary depending on numerous factors, including the State party’s developmental level. They will include, however, the underlying determinants of health, such as safe and potable drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities, hospitals, clinics and other health-related buildings, trained medical and professional personnel receiving domestically competitive salaries and essential drugs, as defined by the WHO Action Programme on Essential Drugs. (b) Accessibility. Health facilities, goods and services have to be accessible to everyone without discrimination, within the jurisdiction of the State party. Accessibility has four overlapping dimensions: 110 Cf. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly by Resolution 2200A (XXI), of December 16, 1966, and in force since January 3, 1976. Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 118. 111 Cf. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21. 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 134, and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 119. 112 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 118, and General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, August 11, 2000, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 1. 113 37