whom the State did not take the necessary measures to provide them with a dignified life as to the provision of health services, among other things.80 103. As for the right to humane treatment, the Court has established that States have the duty to adopt the necessary measures with a mind to address threats to the physical integrity of persons.81 104. Both the IACHR and the Court have ruled on the existing relationship between the right to life and to humane treatment and the right to health.82 In this regard, both bodies of the Inter-American system have taken into account for purposes of interpretation of the right to life and humane treatment in connection with the right to health, the content of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man83 and the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador).84 Also, the right to health has also been collected in instruments of universal human rights system and other regional systems.85 105. The Inter-American Court has consistently interpreted that the right to life and humane treatment are directly and immediately linked to human health care86 and that “inadequate medical care” may entail the violation thereof.87 The Commission finds that this intrinsic relationship constitutes a manifestation of an existing interdependence and indivisibility between civil and political rights and 80 IA Court of HR, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2006. Series C No. 142, par. 161; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146; and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, pars. 194 to 217. 81 IA Court of HR, Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, par. 128. 82 IACHR, Report No. 102/13, Case 12.723, Merits, TGGL, Ecuador, November 5, 2013. IACHR. Report: Access to maternal health services from a human rights perspective. June 7, 2010. Section II. 83 Article XI of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man establishes: Every person has the right to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to food, clothing, housing and medical care, to the extent permitted by public and community resources.” 84 Ratified by the State of Guatemala on October 5, 2010. Article 10 of the Protocol of San Salvador establishes that: 1. Everyone shall have the right to health, understood to mean the enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental and social well-being. 2. In order to ensure the exercise of the right to health, the States Parties agree to recognize health as a public good and, particularly, to adopt the following measures to ensure that right: a. Primary health care, that is, essential health care made available to all individuals and families in the community; b. Extension of the benefits of health services to all individuals subject to the State’s jurisdiction; c. Universal immunization against the principal infectious diseases; d. Prevention and treatment of endemic, occupational and other diseases; e. Education of the population on the prevention and treatment of health problems, and f. Satisfaction of the health needs of the highest risk groups and of those whose poverty makes them the most vulnerable. 85 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 25; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 12; The European Social Charter, article 11; and African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, article 16. 86 IA Court of HR, Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, par. 130; and Case of Vera Vera et al v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, par. 43. 87 IA Court of HR, Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, par. 130; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 157; and Case of Vera Vera et al v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, par. 44. 26