regard, the arguments of the Commission and of the representatives follow the approach adopted by the Court since the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru,62 which has subsisted in subsequent rulings.63 Indeed, this approach represented a change in the Court’s case law in relation to previous cases where the Commission or the representatives had argued violations of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER), which were analyzed based on their connectivity with a civil or political right. 64 In this regard, the Court recalls that already in the case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, it had indicated the following: Thus, it is clear that it can be interpreted that the American Convention incorporated into its list of protected rights the so-called economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER), by derivation from the norms recognized in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), as well as from the rules of interpretation established in Article 29 of the Convention; particularly, that this prevents limitations or exclusions to the enjoyment of the rights established in the American Declaration and even those recognized in the domestic sphere. Also, based on a systematic, teleological and evolutive interpretation, the Court has had recourse to the national and international corpus iuris on this matter to provide specific content to the scope of the rights protected by the Convention in order to define the scope of the specific obligations relating to each right.65 74. Based on the above, and owing to the importance of this matter for the legal certainty of the inter-American system, the Court finds it pertinent to clarify the change in its case law in this area by an interpretation of Article 26 of the Convention and of its relationship to Articles 1(1), 2, 62 and 63 of this instrument. Consequently, in this section, the Court will rule as follows: (a) on the justiciability of the ESCER; (b) on the right to health as an autonomous and justiciable right; (c) on the violation of the right to health in this case, and (d) on the violation of the rights to personal integrity and to life in this case. Article 63 of the Convention stipulates: “1. If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 2. In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 61 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, paras. 141 to 150 and 154. 62 Cf. The Environment and Human Rights (State obligations in relation to the environment in the context of the protection and guarantee of the rights to life and to personal integrity: interpretation and scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC23/17 of November 15, 2017. Series A No. 23, para. 57; Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 192; Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 220, and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 100. 63 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 117; Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 43; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 130, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 171. 64 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 103. 65 25