d) Quality. As well as being culturally acceptable, health facilities, goods and services must also be scientifically and medically appropriate and of good quality. This requires, inter alia, skilled medical personnel, scientifically approved and unexpired drugs and hospital equipment, safe and potable water, and adequate sanitation.90 107. In keeping with said principles, the Commission and the Court have held that States are responsible for regulating on an ongoing basis the provision of services and execution of national programs pertaining to the achievement of quality health care services, in such a way that any threat to the lives or physical integrity of persons undergoing health treatment is averted.91 The Court has established that the State has the duty to regulate, supervise and monitor the provision of health care, ensuring, among other aspects, compliance with the principles of availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of the aforementioned medical benefits, both in the public and private arenas.92 1.2 General considerations regarding the obligations of the State vis-à-vis persons with HIV/AIDS 108. According to the World Health Organization, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a disease that infects the cells of a person’s immune system, destroying or impairing its function.93 It causes progressive weakening of the immune system.94 Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a term used to refer to the most advanced stages of HIV infection and is marked by the presence of some of the HIVrelated opportunistic diseases.95 109. The Commission accepts the premise that infection with the HIV virus presents an obvious adverse effect on the health of an individual, which in turn has an impact on personal integrity and may also generate a serious risk to life.96 For its part, the Court has established that the harm to health caused by HIV/AIDS, as a consequence of the severity of the illness involved and the risks that the person may face at different points in his or her life, constitutes a violation of the right to life, in view of the danger of death that the victim has faced and may face in the future, owing to the illness.97 The Commission has stressed that the suspension of treatment would give rise to a resurgence of the symptoms and to a premature death.98 110. The IACHR has held that persons living with HIV/AIDS have historically been subjected to discrimination inasmuch as “HIV/AIDS-related stigma is rampant in the Americas, which not only hinders an 90 United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment Number 14, E/C.12/2000/4, August 11, 2000, par. 12. 91 IA Court of HR, Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, par. 99. Also, see: IACHR, Report No. 102/13, Case 12.723, Merits, TGGL, Ecuador, November 5, 2013. 92 IA Court of HR, Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, par. 152. 93WHO, Health topics, HIV/AIDS. Available at: http://www.who.int/topics/hiv_aids/es/ 94 WHO, Health topics, HIV/AIDS. Available at: http://www.who.int/topics/hiv_aids/es/ 95 WHO, Health topics, HIV/AIDS. Available at: http://www.who.int/topics/hiv_aids/es/ IACHR, Report No. 102/13, Case 12.723, Merits, TGGL, Ecuador, November 5, 2013, par. 168. It should be mentioned that the Commission recalls that it has granted precautionary measures to persons with HIV/AIDS, whose rights to life and to health were seriously in jeopardy due to a lack of basic care from institutions of the State to provide access to necessary medicine for their treatment. The Commission requested the States to adopt emergency measures in order to provide access to the essential medications for their survival, as well as to medical examinations that make it possible to conduct regular evaluation of their health status. See. IACHR, Precautionary Measures on behalf of Jorge Odir Miranda et al, El Salvador, 2000; and Precautionary Measures on behalf of Juan Pablo Améstica Cáceres, Manuel Orlando Farías and Náyade Orieta Rojas Vera, Chile, 2001. 96 97 IA Court of HR. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 01, 2015. Series C No. 298. Par. 190. 98 IACHR, Report No. 63/08, Case 12.534, Andrea Mortlock, United States, July 25, 2008, par. 90. 28