76. These norms have been used on many occasions by the high national jurisdictions, even to ensure “direct” protection, and citing different international sources and treaties. 77. In this regard, the experience of the Constitutional Court of Colombia is relevant. The argument “by connectivity” was used, particularly to delimit the content of the right requiring judicial protection by means of the action for constitutional protection. 139 In Judgment T-016 of 2007, that Court indicated that it was possible to go beyond a dogma based on connectivity and initiate an analysis of the right to health as a direct fundamental right: 140 … Nowadays, it is specious to advocate the requirement of connectivity with regard to fundamental rights, which all have – some more than others – an undeniable connotation of social benefits. That requirement should be understood in other terms; in other words, as a close connection between a series of circumstances that occur in the specific case and the need to have recourse to the action for amparo as a way to make a fundamental right effective. Thus, with regard to the fundamental right to health, it can be said that, regarding the social benefits excluded from legal and regulatory categories, it is only possible to have recourse to protection by means of the action for amparo in those cases in which it can be proved that the failure to recognize the fundamental right to health: (i) also signifies harming, seriously and directly, the human dignity of the person affected by the violation of the right; (ii) it is argued with regard to a subject of special constitutional protection, and/or (iii) it implies placing the person affected in a situation of defenselessness owing to the inability to pay to claim this right. The foregoing, precisely because the State – in application of the principles of equity, solidarity, subsidiarity and efficiency – must rationalize the satisfactory provision of the health care services for which it is responsible or for which private individuals who function as public authorities are responsible, giving priority to those who are in any of the above-mentioned circumstances. In this regard, the Constitutional Court has indicated in its reiterated case law that, under these circumstances, even in the case of social benefits excluded from the POS, the POSS, the PAB, the PAC and from those obligations established in General Comment 14, the amparo is in order as a mechanism to obtain the protection of the fundamental constitutional right to health. 78. Furthermore, it is important to stress that all the rights have some aspects that relate to social benefits and some aspects that do not. In other words, establishing the characteristic of rights requiring social services only for the social rights does not appear to charge to those who require this; (2) the State shall guarantee, by legislation and public policies, the exercise of the economic and social rights of the lower-income population and, consequently, shall provide its protection and assistance to vulnerable groups and sectors; and combat social evils with appropriate means and with the assistance of international organizations and agreements.” 136 “Article 36. Everyone has the right to good health. The State shall promote general health care by the systematic improvement of living conditions and conditions in the workplace, and shall provide information on health protection.” 137 “Article 44. The State shall legislate all matters related to health and public hygiene, in order to ensure the physical, moral and social improvement of all the inhabitants of the country. All the inhabitants have the obligation to take care of their health, as well as that of seeking assistance in case of illness. The State shall provide, free of charge, the means of prevention and assistance only to the poor and those without sufficient resources.” (Italics added) 138 “Article 83. Health is a fundamental social right, an obligation of the State, which shall guarantee it as part of the right to life. The State shall promote and implement policies designed to increase the quality of life, the collective well-being, and access to services. Everyone has a right to the protection of his or her health, as well as the obligation to play an active role in its promotion and defense, and to comply with the public health and hygiene measures established by law pursuant to the international conventions and treaties signed and ratified by the Republic.” 139 The Colombian action for constitutional protection corresponds to the application, appeal or trial for amparo in most countries of Latin America. In Chile it is called the “remedy of protection” (recurso de protección), and in Brazil an “injunction” (mandado de segurança). 140 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-016 of 2007 (Judge Rapporteur: Humberto Sierra Porto), para. 12. 27