144. In this judgment (supra paras. 118 to 127), the Court has already found that the State violated the right to health of 49 victims by failing to ensure them adequate medical treatment as people living with HIV. The Court will now examine the allegation that the State violated the commitment established in Article 26 concerning compliance with its obligation of progressivity. This obligation consists in the adoption of provisions, especially of an economic and technical nature – to the extent of available resources and by either legislative or other appropriate means – to achieve progressively the full realization of certain economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. In addition, the Court recalls that the progressive realization of the ESCER means that the States Parties have the specific and constant obligation to advance as rapidly and effectively as possible towards the full realization of the ESCER.172 In this regard, the Court reiterates that the obligation of progressivity: (…) should not be interpreted to mean that, during their implementation, these obligations become deprived of specific content, which also does not mean that States may postpone indefinitely the adoption of measures to make the rights in question effective, especially almost forty years after the entry into force of the interAmerican treaty. Therefore, the obligation of non-retrogressivity applies with regard to any realization of the rights that has been achieved.”173 145. Bearing in mind that the matter analyzed refers to the specific measures that, in the opinion of the Commission and of the representatives, were retrogressive for the prevention and combat of HIV in Guatemala, the Court clarifies that, in this case, it does not have to assess whether the State’s current public policy for combating HIV is insufficient in relation to the obligations established in Article 26 of the Convention. Indeed, the Court notes that the State has promoted a series of actions to combat the HIV epidemic in Guatemala. The State has described these actions to the Court on different occasions and they include the promulgation of laws and decrees, government decisions, care protocols, cooperation agreements and manuals (supra paras. 41 to 54). Further, the Court notes that, from 2004 to 2017, the State progressively increased the budget allocated to combat HIV, and that it has adopted other public policy measures aimed at achieving a greater protection for the population. 146. Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the obligations regarding the progressive realization of the ESCER require the continual execution of actions to achieve the full enjoyment of these rights. Thus, the progressive dimension of the protection of ESCER, although acknowledging the gradual nature of their realization, also includes a sense of progress, which calls for an effective improvement of the enjoyment and exercise of these rights, so that social inequalities are corrected and the inclusion of vulnerable groups is facilitated. Accordingly, the obligation of progressive realization prohibits State inactivity in the task of implementing actions to achieve the comprehensive protection of these rights, especially when the total absence of State protection places the individual at risk of suffering harm to his or her life or personal integrity. This risk occurs for people living with HIV who do not receive adequate medical care. Consequently, the Court considers that the State failed to comply with its treaty-based obligation to ensure progressive realization because it did not have public policies or programs that de facto – and not only de jure – allowed it to make progress in complying with its obligation to achieve the full realization of the right to health. Cf. Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 104 and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, August 11, 2000, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 31. 172 Cf. Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 104. 173 51