With the consolidation of that line of jurisprudence and effective compliance by the States, the challenge currently facing the judges is much simpler and more natural. The present Judgment reproduces this concept, integrating it without moving beyond that tradition. The right to health is effectively protected, albeit as an integral element of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the Convention; however, the Judgment does not hold the State accountable for its violation, even though this is contemplated in Article 26. It is important to carry out a historical review to pinpoint the reasons that led to the division of human rights into Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and determined that the former are directly judiciable, whereas the latter would not be. In 1966, when the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were signed, we were in the middle of the Cold War and it was politically appropriate to adopt a more western and individualistic view of human rights. These two treaties were signed in a climate of ideological division, breaking with the logic of the indivisibility of human rights to allow States to adhere to one or both. The priority given to civil and political rights was made evident by the option to declare their direct justiciability. At that historic moment, the focus was on individuals and not on the socioeconomic structure in which they are inserted. We must bear in mind that this division is not echoed in all the instruments that followed. In its preamble, the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of ESCR, adopted in San Salvador on November 17, 1988, reaffirms that human rights comprise an indivisible whole,6 thereby beginning the slow process of deconstructing the doctrinal basis that allowed for a radically different treatment of the two categories of human rights. Since then, the Court has progressively sought to guarantee ESCR, more firmly and more frequently, though always at the point where these converge with traditionally justiciable rights.7 The legal and doctrinal opportunity to protect health, though linked to Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the Convention, speaks very eloquently of the real interdependence and indivisibility of human rights. The delay in taking this next step - of directly recognizing the violation of the right to health - weakens the discourse that this is a comprehensive system for the protection of human rights, given that the inter-American System’s jurisdictional protection is only provided to certain human rights and denied to others, which are recognized equally in the international instruments ratified by Guatemala. The Preamble states: ���Considering the close relationship that exists between economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights, in that the different categories of rights constitute an indivisible whole based on the recognition of the dignity of the human person, for which reason both require permanent protection and promotion if they are to be fully realized, the violation of some rights in favor of the realization of others can never be justified;” 6 In some cases, the Court has analyzed the scope of Article 26 of the American Convention, generally limiting itself to interpreting certain regulatory aspects of that conventional instrument: Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”). Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009, Series C No. 198, paras. 99 to 103; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C no. 130, para. 158; Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paras. 147 and 148; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 163 (in this last case, the State accepted its responsibility for the violation of Article 26, but the Court only included that Article in its narrative on the violation of the right to life). 7 4