effective remedies for their protection. The methodologies or sources of analysis that are relevant for each one of these obligations must be established according to the circumstances inherent to each case. 63. In connection with the enforceable and immediate components of the obligation to take steps and adopt measures, the Committee on ESCR has indicated, for example, that the adoption of measures in itself is not limited or conditioned by any other considerations; because of that, although achieving the effective realization of the rights may be gradual, the adoption of measures or steps for such effects must be deliberate, concrete, and aimed as clearly as possible at their enforcement. The State also has basic obligations that must meet basic levels of said rights, which are not subject to progressive realization but rather are of an immediate nature.85 64. On the basis of the above, the Commission considers that it is clear that the right to health constitutes one of the economic and social norms mentioned in Article 26 of the Convention and, in that respect, states parties are obliged to ensure their progressive realization, as well as to respect, guarantee, and adopt the measures needed to ensure the enforceability of said rights. 3. Right of pregnant women to life, personal integrity, and health 65. The Commission recalls that the right to life is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all the other human rights and that without respect for this right all the others are meaningless. 86 Compliance with Article 4 in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention not only assumes that no person’s life shall be taken arbitrarily, but it also requires states to take all the appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life, in fulfillment of their duty to guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights of all persons under their jurisdiction.87 66. Both the IACHR and the Court have ruled on the relationship between the rights to life and personal integrity and the right to health.88 The Inter-American Court has interpreted on repeated occasions that the rights to life and personal integrity are directly and immediately linked to care for human health89 and that “the lack of adequate medical care” can lead to the violation of these rights.90 Likewise, both bodies have pointed out that states are responsible for regulating, on a permanent basis, the provision of services and the implementation of national programs for achieving the delivery of quality public health services, so that they can deter any threat to the right to life and physical integrity of the persons subjected to treatment for health.91 67. The Court has pointed out that “the fundamental right to life includes […] also the right that he will not be prevented from having access to the conditions that guarantee a dignified existence,” 92 which in terms of jurisprudence has also included the provision of health services, among other aspects. 93 As for the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it has pointed out that all health services, goods, and facilities must United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General comment No. 3: The nature of States parties’ obligations (Article 2, Paragraph 1, of the Covenant), 1990. In that respect, see: IACHR. Report on Poverty and Human Rights in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.164 Doc. 147 (September 7, 2017) paras. 236 and 237. 86 IACHR. Case 12.270. Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, para. 185. 87 I/A Court H.R. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 80. See also: IACHR, Case of 12.270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, para. 186. 88 IACHR, Report No. 102/13, Case 12.723, Merits, TGGL, Ecuador, November 5, 2013. IACHR. Report Access to Maternal Health Services from a Human Rights Perspective. June 7, 2010. Section II. 89 I/A Court H.R. 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 Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 43. 90 I/A Court H.R. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 130; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 157; and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 44. 91 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 99. See also: IACHR, Report No. 102/13, Case 12.723, Merits, TGGL, Ecuador, November 5, 2013. 92 92 I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 144 and 191. 93 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2006. Series C No. 142, para. 161; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146; and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, paras. 194 to 217. 85 16