29 cultural rights. In the words of the Court, both groups of rights must be “ .. fully understood as human rights, without any rank and enforceable in all the cases before competent authorities.” 171 139. An examination of whether there has been a failure to fulfill the duty to respect or ensure is related to the circumstances of each case at hand. 140. In the present case, the Commission has accepted as proven that both the Red Cross of Ecuador – to which the Blood Bank that provided the blood used for TGGL belongs – as well as the Humanitarian Clinic, where the transfusion was performed, constitute private institutions. 141. In one of its most recent judgments, the Court listed three principal obligations deriving from the duty to ensure the right to physical integrity vis-à-vis the right to health, that is, the obligations of regulation, oversight and control.172 Such obligations apply both, to the direct provision of services on the part of the State and private entities. 142. With specific regard to the obligation of regulating, in the cases of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil and Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, the Court emphasized the following: the States are responsible for regulating [...] at all times the rendering of services and the implementation of the national programs regarding the performance of public quality health care services so that they may deter any threat to the right to life and the physical integrity of the individuals undergoing medical treatment. They must, inter alia, create the proper mechanisms to carry out inspections at institutions, [...] submit, investigate, and solve complaints and take the appropriate disciplinary or judicial citations regarding cases of professional misconduct or the violation of the patients’ rights.173 143. With regard to the elements of the obligations of supervision and control, the InterAmerican Court has quoted the European Court of Human Rights to emphasize that the State is still under an obligation to issue licenses and exercise supervision and control over private institutions. 174 144. The Inter-American Court has been clear in indicating that the obligation to inspect includes both, servicesprovied by the State of by private actors 175. The Court detailed the scope of the State responsibility when such obligations regarding private entities are not fulfilled: 171 Case of Acevedo Buendía et. al. (“Cesantes and Jubilados de la Contraloría”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009, Series C No. 198, para. 101. In the same sense: United Nations, Economic and Social Committee, Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No.9, supra, para. 10. See also: Case of Airey v. Ireland, No. 6289/73. Judgment of October 9, 1979, para. 26 and Case of Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, Nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00. Second Section. Judgment of July 27, 2004, para. 47. In the Case of Airey v. Ireland, the European Court stated: “Whilst the Convention sets forth what are essentially civil and political rights, many of them have implications of to social and economic nature. The Court therefore considers, like the Commission, that the mere fact that an interpretation of the Convention may extend into the sphere of social and economic rights should not be to decisive factor against such an interpretation; there is no water-tight division separating that sphere from the field covered by the Convention.” 172 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, paras. 89 and 99. 173 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 99. 174 Cfr. EurCtHR. Case of Storck v. Germany, No. 61603/00. Third Section. Judgment of June 16, 2005, para. 103. In the above case, the European Court established that: “the State is under an obligation to secure to its citizens their right to physical integrity under Article 8 of the [European] Convention [on Human Rights]. For this purpose, there are hospitals run by the State which coexist with private hospitals. The State cannot completely absolve itself of its responsability by delegating its obligations in this sphere to private bodies or individuals.[...][T]he State remained under to duty to exercise supervision and control over private [...] institutions. Such institutions, [...] need not only to licence, but also competent supervision on to regular basis of whether the confinement and medical treatment is justified.” 175 IA Court HR Case of Suarez Peralta v. Ecuador, Judgment of May 21 2013, para. 130. Cfr. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 149.