SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ROBERTO F. CALDAS INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF CHINCHILLA SANDOVAL V. GUATEMALA JUDGMENT OF FEBRUARY 29, 2016 (Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs) I. Introduction First, I emphasize my adherence to the Judgment, to the conclusions reached by this Court and to the reparations resulting therefrom. I only differ with regard to its justification, because I understand that there is a configuration of a breach of the right enshrined in Article 26 of the American Convention, on the point concerning the right to health, and, therefore, of Article 10(1) of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador). Accordingly, this opinion expresses my view that the direct violation of the aforementioned Articles should be added to the grounds set forth in the judgment, without withdrawing or relativizing my position with respect to what was expressed in the Judgment, adopted unanimously by the honorable judges of this Inter-American Court. I offer my separate opinion because I consider that the progressive evolution of the protection of human rights in our region allows us to recognize that the right to health, in addition to being a necessary precursor to guaranteeing the rights to physical integrity and to life, is also an autonomous right of the victim and verifiable by this Court. II. Right to health (Article 10(1) of the Protocol of San Salvador and Article 26 of the Convention) It was wholly proven that the victim was deprived of her liberty and was serving her sentence in a women’s prison in Guatemala, where her state of health deteriorated progressively, producing complications that resulted in her disability and, finally, in her death, preceded by medical and emergency care that was insufficient to prevent such harm.