rights are directly and immediately associated with human health care. 3 Furthermore, as stated in paragraph 170, the protection of the right to personal integrity supposes the regulation of health services in the national sphere, as well as the implementation of various mechanisms aimed at safeguarding the effectiveness of that regulation.4 Therefore, more than an indication of respect for the rights to life and personal integrity, the right to health is an autonomous right. The confirmation, during the proceedings before the Court, that this right was violated, recommends a specific jurisdictional action, as provided in Articles 10(1) of the San Salvador Protocol and 26 of the Convention. I consider that those articles, which contain clear commitments related to economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR), enable the Court to examine the compatibility of the State’s conduct in relation to these obligations. The Court and America are ready to take this important step forward in the system for the protection of human rights in our continent - especially in this case, in which it has already been established that the State’s failure to ensure the health of a detained person is conduct that has concrete repercussions in the Inter-American System. A direct conviction, under Article 26 of the Convention, falls within the framework of the evolution of human rights without producing any ruptures, or even altering the amount of the compensation, for example. But it is important that potential victims understand that the Inter-American System is, indeed, a route open to persons who seek to make those rights effective. More than simply reiterating the protection of health indirectly through the rights to life and personal integrity, the jurisdictional protection of this right can and must be more explicit and direct. The debate on the direct justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) is not new, and for many years the Court has gradually moved toward comprehensive justiciability. Since the end of the 1990s, with the emblematic case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, we have been developing mechanisms for the protection of ESCR, albeit initially via an indirect route,5 thanks to the notable step taken by the judges at that time, who assumed the most difficult task: explaining those rights in the context of other broader and more generic rights. of health (Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).” Twenty-second Session, 2000, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4 (2000), para. 34. Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 117, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 130. 3 Cf. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 130. The Court has also considered that “States must regulate and supervise all activities related to the health care given to individuals under its jurisdiction, as a special duty to protect life and personal integrity, regardless of the public or private nature of the entity providing such health care.” (Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 89. See also: ECHR, Case of Lazar v. Romania, No. 32146/05. Third Section. Judgment of May 16, 2010, para. 66; Case Z v. Poland, No. 46132/08. Fourth Section. Judgment of November 13, 2012, para. 76; and United Nations Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 14, E/C.12/2000/4, August 11, 2000, paras. 12, 33, 35, 36 and 51. 4 See: Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, Judgment of February 28, 2003; Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Judgment of July 4, 2006; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, Judgment of July 1, 2009; Case of González et al. (“Cotton field”) v. Mexico, Judgment of November 16, 2009; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment of August 24, 2010; Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, Judgment of February 24, 2012; Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, Judgment of November 28, 2012. 5 3