The Court notes the existence of an interrelationship between the undertaking of States to ensure an efficient social security policy and their obligation to ensure health care, especially in the context of endemic diseases. 100 Accordingly, the Court reiterates that the reference is sufficiently specific to consider that the OAS Charter implicitly recognizes the right to health.101 100. Second, the Court must determine the scope of the right to health in light of the international corpus juris on the matter. The Court recalls that the obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention constitute, in essence, the basis for determining the international responsibility of a State for violations of the rights recognized in the Convention,102 including those recognized by virtue of Article 26. However, the Convention itself refers expressly to the norms of general international law for its interpretation and application, specifically in Article 29, which establishes the pro persona principle.103 Thus, as has been the Court’s consistent practice, 104 when determining the compatibility of the acts and omissions of the State or its laws with the Convention or other treaties regarding which the Court has jurisdiction, the Court may interpret the obligations and rights they contain in light of other pertinent treaties and norms. 101. Consequently, the Court will use the sources, principles and criteria of the international corpus juris as special norms applicable to determine the content of the right to health.105 The Court indicates that it will use these norms as supplements to the Convention-based provisions in order to determine the right to health, and the corresponding rights for people living with HIV. In this regard, the Court indicates that it is not assuming a competence that it does not have over some treaties; neither is it according Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 19: The right to social security (Article 9), November 23, 2007, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/19, para. 13. 100 The Court considers that the right to health is an essential component of the right to social security, becuse health protection is of fundamental importance to ensure to every individual their human dignity when they are faced with circumstances that deprive them of their capacity to fully exercise their rights. In this regard, General Comment No. 19 of the CESCR indicates that: “States parties have an obligation to guarantee that health systems are established to provide adequate access to health services for all.” It also indicates “the particular importance of the right to social security in the context of endemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS […].” Furthermore, the Committee indicated that States parties were required “[t]o ensure access to a social security scheme that provides a minimum essential level of benefits to all individuals and families.” Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 19: The right to social security (Article 9), November 23, 2007, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/19, para.13 and 59(a). 101 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 107, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 143. 102 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 143, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 26. 103 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 103; Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 145; Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 168; Case of the Pacheco Tineo family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 129; Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 83, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 78 and 121. 104 Cf. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21. 2013. Series C No. 261, paras. 131 and 135, and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 114. 105 35