I. RIGHT TO HEALTH 3. This separate opinion on the judgment is submitted because I do not share the reference made in its fifth operative paragraph5 to Article 266 of the American Convention on Human Rights7 in order, consequently, to make the violation of rights to which this article alludes justiciable before the Court. 4. In keeping with the reasons given in the other separate opinions that the undersigned has issued in this regard,8 which are hereby ratified, and in accordance with the considerations in a preceding separate opinions regarding Article 26,9 I do not agree with the provisions of the said fifth operative paragraph because, among other reasons and in sum, the Convention only regulates the rights that in it are “recognized”10 “set “The State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, personal integrity, privacy, equality before the law and health, pursuant to Articles 4, 5, 11, 24 and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure the rights without discrimination and the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and also for failing to comply with the obligations of Article 7(a) of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convention of Belém do Pará,” to the detriment of Manuela, pursuant to paragraphs 180 to 260 of this judgment.” 5 “The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means and subject to available resources, the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires.” Hereinafter, Article 26. 6 7 Hereinafter, the Convention. Partially dissenting, Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, of October 6, 2021; Concurring, Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, of August 31, 2021; Partially dissenting, Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, of March 26, 2021; Dissenting, Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, of November 24, 2020; Partially dissenting, Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antonio de Jesús and their families v. Brazil, of July 15, 2020; Dissenting, Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina, of February 6, 2020; Partially dissenting, Case of Hernández v. Argentina, of November 22, 2019; Partially dissenting, Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, of March 6, 2019; Partially dissenting, Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, of February 8, 2018; Partially dissenting, Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, of August 31, 2017, and Separate, Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru, of November 23, 2017. 8 9 Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, of October 6, 2021. Art. 1(1): “Obligation to Respect Rights. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 10 Art. 22(4): “Freedom of Movement and Residence. The exercise of the rights recognized in paragraph 1 may also be restricted by law in designated zones for reasons of public interest.” Art. 25(1): “Right to Judicial Protection. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” Art. 29(a)””Restrictions regarding Interpretation. No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein.” Art. 30: “Scope of Restrictions. The restrictions that, pursuant to this Convention, may be placed on the enjoyment or exercise of the rights or freedoms recognized herein may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established.” Art.31: “Recognition of Other Rights. Other rights and freedoms recognized in accordance with the procedures established in Articles 76 and 77 may be included in the system of protection of this Convention.” 2