149. As the Court has established, the State’s supervisory obligation encompasses both the services provide by the State directly or indirectly, and also those offered by private individuals. 203 Hence, it covers the situations in which the services have been delegated, in which private individuals provide them on behalf of the State, and also the supervision of private services relating to rights of the greatest social interest, which must also be monitored by the public authorities. 204 The eventual provision of medical care in institutions without the proper authorization, the infrastructure and hygiene of which are inadequate for the provision of medical services, or by professionals who do not have the appropriate qualifications for such activities, could have a significant impact on the rights to life and to integrity of the patient. 205 150. With regard to the supervision of services provided in private institutions, the Court has stated that: In the case of essential competences related to the supervision and control of the provisions of services of public interest, such as health care, by either public or private entities (as in the case of a private hospital), responsibility stems from the failure to comply with the obligation to supervise the provision of the services in order to protect the respective right. 206 151. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that the State has the obligation to grant licenses and to exercise the supervision and control of private institutions. 207 152. In addition, the Court finds that the State’s supervision and inspection should be designed to ensure the principles of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of the medical services. 208 Regarding the quality of the service, the State has the obligation to 203 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra, para. 141. 204 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra, para. 119. 205 Cf. United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 14, supra, paras. 12 and 35. 206 Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra, para. 119. 207 Cf. ECHR. Case of Storck v. Germany, No. 61603/00. Third Section. Judgment of 16 June 2005, para. 103. In this 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 responsibility by delegating its obligations in this sphere to private bodies or individuals. [… T]he State remain[s] under a duty to exercise supervision and control over private […] institutions. Such institutions […] need not only a licence, but also competent supervision on a regular basis of whether the confinement and medical treatment is justified.” 208 Cf. United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 14, supra, para. 12. In this regard, the Committee stated that: The right to health in all its forms and at all levels contains the following interrelated and essential elements, the precise application of which will depend on the conditions prevailing in a particular State party: (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[se services] 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 […]; (b) Accessibility. Health facilities, goods and services have to be accessible to everyone without discrimination, within the jurisdiction of the State party. […]; 45