must be examined together with the implementation of the said obligations of guarantee. 164 Thus, the Court must verify whether the State is responsible in this specific case. 130. Regarding the relationship between the obligation of guarantee (Article 1(1)) and Article 5(1) of the Convention, the Court has established that the right to personal integrity is directly and immediately linked to attention to human health, 165 and that the absence of adequate medical care can lead to the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention. 166 In this regard, the Court has indicated that the protection of the right to personal integrity supposes the regulation of the health care services in the domestic sphere, as well as the implementation of a series of mechanisms designed to ensure the effectiveness of this regulation. 167 Accordingly, the Court must determine whether, in this case, the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, was guaranteed. 131. The Court also finds it pertinent to recall the interdependence and indivisibility of civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights, because they must be understood integrally as human rights without any specific ranking between them, and as rights that can be required in all cases before those authorities with the relevant competence. 168 In this regard, Article XI of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man establishes that every person has the right “to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to […] medical care, to the extent permitted by public and community resources.” Meanwhile, Article 45 of the OAS Charter requires all Members States “to dedicate every effort [… to] [d]evelop […] an efficient social security policy.” 169 In this regard, Article 10 170 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention 164 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 280. 165 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra, para. 117, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 43. 166 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 157, and Case of Vera Vera et al., supra, para. 44. 167 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra, paras. 89 and 90, and Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra, para. 121; See also: Case of Lazar v. Romania, No. 32146/05. Third Section. Judgment of 16 May 2010, para. 66; Case of Z v. Poland, No. 46132/08. Fourth Section. Judgment of 13 November 2012, para. 76, and United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 14, E/C.12/2000/4, 11 August 2000, paras. 12, 33, 35, 36 and 51. 168 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Comptroller General’s Office) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009 Series C No. 198, para. 101. Similarly: Cf. United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 9, supra, para. 10. See also: Case of Airey v. Ireland, No. 6289/73. Judgment of 9 October 1979, para. 26, and Case of Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, Nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00. Second Section. Judgment of 27 July 2004, para. 47. In the Case of Airey v. Ireland, the European Court indicated: “Whilst the Convention sets forth what are essentially civil and political rights, many of them have implications of a social or 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 a decisive factor against such an interpretation; there is no water-tight division separating that sphere from the field covered by the Convention.” 169 Article 26 of the American Convention (Pact of San José) refers to the progressive development, “by legislation or other appropriate means, and in keeping with the available resources […] of the rights implicit in the economic [and] social, standards set forth in the Charter of the [OAS].” The right to health is included in this reference. Cf. General Comment No. 3. The nature of States parties' obligations. Paragraph 2: “while the full realization of the relevant rights may be achieved progressively, steps towards that goal must be taken within a reasonably short time after the Covenant's entry into force for the States concerned. Such steps should be deliberate, concrete and targeted as clearly as possible towards meeting the obligations recognized in the Covenant.” Paragraph 5: “Among the measures which might be considered appropriate, in addition to legislation, is the provision of judicial remedies with respect to rights which may, in accordance with the national legal system, be considered justiciable. The Committee notes, for example, that the enjoyment of the rights recognized, without 37