by them were: chronic malnutrition, anemia, deafness, recurring respiratory infection, pneumonia, ocular trauma, urinary infections, etc. 33. The petitioners claimed that the treatment given by the State is ineffective because: i) there have been protracted periods of short supply of medicines; ii) there are problems of accessibility to treatment because of the low number of public facilities with any type of service available for persons living with HIV/AIDS; iii) facilities are understaffed with health care workers, who have received specialized training in treating persons with HIV/AIDS; and iv) there is a shortage of the necessary testing kits in order to properly manage HIV/AIDS, as well as the appearance of opportunistic diseases. Their contention is that all of these factors have led to a rapid deterioration in the health of the victims, who are at imminent risk of death. 34. The petitioners alleged that in light of the absence of adequate treatment, they have been compelled to seek alternatives to attempt to save lives, resorting to donated medications or the purchase thereof. They argued that the failure to test has made it impossible to figure out the most suitable treatments for each particular case. 35. Regarding the right to equal protection, they argued that at first only 27 persons with HIV/AIDS received antiretroviral medicines from the State, which constituted 0.7% of the total number of persons afflicted with the disease. They claimed that 99.3% of those persons stricken, among which the alleged victims are included, “with the exact same rights, have to [stand by and] watch how their affliction constitutes a death sentence issued by the State itself, because access to medicines is banned for them.” They contended that this constituted blatant discrimination against them. 36. They noted that subsequently, with the transfer of the alleged victims to State services where sporadic treatment is received, a distinction was created between them and the persons who also have HIV/AIDS and are not treated by the State, even though all are under equal circumstances. They contended that the State is obligated to adopt positive measures to turn the existing discriminatory situation around or change it with regard to the alleged victims of the case, who have not been provided medical treatment to enable them to lead a dignified life on an equal basis. They maintained that in most instances, the victims have been provided inadequate treatment, which has worsened their health situation and lives. 37. As for progressive development of the right to health, the petitioners alleged that the right to health includes obligations of immediate effect, such as, preventing discrimination, as well as making sure that certain drugs, known to be essential medications, are available and accessible throughout its jurisdiction. They asserted that according to the WHO, these medications include antiretroviral drugs. They contended, however, that the State did not absolutely provide them with these medications until 2006 and 2007; and subsequently did so only partially and off and on. 38. Lastly, with respect to the right to humane treatment, the petitioners submitted a list of family members and loved ones of the alleged victims, who have been adversely affected by the facts of the case. As to the State’s questioning of the list, the petitioners replied that it is made up of the names of family members or loved ones, who have been accompanying the alleged victims throughout their illness and their struggle to receive medical care and treatment. They noted that in some instances, the alleged victims were unable to resort to their next-of-kin out of fear of rejection, because they were stigmatized by their own families. They further explained that it is common in Guatemala for people from the same family to not be registered under the same surname. Additionally, they clarified that calling the same person a victim and a family member of another victim does not mean that the person was counted twice but rather that person actually holds two separate statuses. B. Position of the State 39. In its first written submissions in 2004, the State recognized that a negligible number of persons living with HIV/AIDS in Guatemala were receiving health care from the government. It claimed that “to the extent possible as permitted by the budget, it provides free treatment” and that many low-income 6