ensure the right to health. Those measures included legal barriers concerning patents that prevented a permanent supply of low-cost drugs in the health system by not allowing the State to use its financial resources effectively. Specifically, they asserted that Guatemala had adopted regulations that made it impossible to access the drugs required by people living with HIV on a permanent basis, and this had had a direct impact on the presumed victims. In this regard, the Industrial Property Law established a limitation on the legitimate trade of generic drugs, with an impact on access to treatment for people living with HIV. They also argued that such measures have been accompanied by laws and practices in relation to administrative contracts that had prevented an adequate distribution of available resources in order to access drugs. The representatives also argued that corruption had been an obstacle to the available resources being used effectively to guarantee the right to health. 71. The State indicated that it had taken all possible steps, including advising patients what they should and should not do, and therefore, strictly speaking, it could not be found responsible if patients did not follow its recommendations. The State asserted that, without prejudice to the eventual responsibility that could be attributed to it owing to the lack of drugs, the psychological effects or habits of a person living with HIV that would help the State comply with is international obligations should be taken into consideration. Regarding the arguments concerning Article 26, the State agreed with the Commission’s decision and considered that, in the case of the right to health, there was an obligation of progressive compliance, and this referred to the right to health in general, both preventive and curative, that should be provided to the whole population. However, it argued that the realization of the social and economic rights depended on the situation of each State and, above all, on their financial situation and, therefore, such rights could not be realized in the short-term. B. Considerations of the Court 72. Based on the positions of the parties and the proven facts, the Court notes that, in this case, the central dispute refers to whether the State is responsible for: (i) the violation of Article 26 of the American Convention, owing to the violation of the right to health of the presumed victims as people living with HIV; (ii) the violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, owing to the impact that the medical care – or lack of it – could have had on the personal integrity and life of the presumed victims; (iii) the violation of the principle of non-discrimination, in cases where the presumed victims had not been ensured comprehensive medical care that took into account their different factors of vulnerability such as being people living with HIV, especially in the case of pregnant women, and (iv) the violation of the principle of progressivity contained in Article 26 of the American Convention, owing to the alleged retrogressive measures adopted that prejudiced the full realization of the right to health of people living with HIV in Guatemala. 73. In this regard, the Court notes that the main legal problem set forth by the parties to this case relates to the scope of the right to health, understood as an autonomous right derived from Article 26 of the American Convention, and to the competence of this Court to rule on violations of this rights based on Articles 6260 and 6361 of the Convention. In this Article 62 of the Convention establishes: “1. A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention. 2. Such declaration may be made unconditionally, on the condition of reciprocity, for a specified period, or for specific cases. It shall be presented to the Secretary General of the Organization, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other member states of the Organization and to the Secretary of the Court. 3. The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” 60 24