States, Article XI 11 of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, and Article 25(1) 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the last two instruments pursuant to the provisions of Article 29(d) 13 of the Pact of San José), as well as other international instruments and sources that accord content, definition and scope to the right to health – as the Court has done in relation to the civil and political rights 14 - such as Articles 10 15 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 17 and 33(2) of the Social Charter of the Americas, 16 12(1) and 12(2)(d) 17 10 Article 45 of the OAS Charter indicates: “The Member States […] agree to dedicate every effort to the application of the following principles and mechanisms: (h) Development of an efficient social security policy.” In the Judgment this precept is used in relation to Article 26 to arrive at the right to health, see para. 131 and footnote 176 of the Judgment to which this separate opinion refers; although it appears to bear a greater relationship to the issue of Article 34(i) of the OAS Charter. 11 American Declaration: “Article XI. Every person has the right to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to food, clothing, housing and medical care, to the extent permitted by public and community resources” (underlining added). 12 Universal Declaration: “Article 25(1): Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services… .” 13 This expressly states that that the effect that the “American Declaration” and “other international acts of the same nature” may have cannot be limited. 14 For example, the Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 153, establishes: “The content and scope of Article 19 of the American Convention must defined, in cases such as this, taking into consideration the pertinent provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular its articles 6, 37, 38 and 39, and of Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions, because these instruments and the American Convention form part of a very comprehensive international corpus juris for the protection of children that States must respect.” Another example is the Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001, Series C No. 79, paras. 147 and 148; the latter states that: “By using an evolutive interpretation of the international instruments for the protection of human rights, taking into account the applicable rules of interpretation and, pursuant to Article 29(b) of the Convention – which prohibits a restrictive interpretation of rights – this Court considers that Article 21 of the Convention protects the right to property in a sense that includes, among other matters, the rights of the members of the indigenous communities relating to communal property, which is also recognized in the Nicaraguan Constitution.” Similarly, in the Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011, Series C No.221, para. 121, the Inter-American Court established that: “María Macarena Gelman had a right to special measures of protection […] [so that] the alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 3, 17, 18 and 20 of the Convention must be interpreted in light of the corpus juris concerning the rights of the child and, in particular, according to the special circumstances of the case, in harmony with the other relevant norms, especially Articles 7, 8, 9, 11, 16 and 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.” 15 Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: “Article 10. Right to Health. 1. Everyone shall have the right to health, understood to mean the enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental and social well-being. (2) In order to ensure the exercise of the right to health, the States Parties agree to recognize health as a public good and, particularly, to adopt the following measures to ensure that right: (a) Primary health care, that is, essential health care made available to all individuals and families in the community; (b) Extension of the benefits of health services to all individuals subject to the State's jurisdiction; (c) Universal immunization against the principal infectious diseases; (d) Prevention and treatment of endemic, occupational and other diseases; (e) Education of the population on the prevention and treatment of health problems, and (f) Satisfaction of the health needs of the highest risk groups and of those whose poverty makes them the most vulnerable.” 16 Bolivia. Social Charter of the Americas, approved by the OAS General Assembly on June 4, 2012, in Cochabamba, “Chapter III, Article 6. The Member States reaffirm that the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is a fundamental right of all persons without discrimination and recognize that health is an essential condition for social inclusion and cohesion, integral development and economic growth with equity. In that context, the States reaffirm their responsibility and commitment to improve the availability of, access to, and quality of health care services. The States are committed to these country efforts in the health area in accordance with the principles promoted by the Health Agenda for the Americas 2008-2017: human rights, universality, comprehensiveness, accessibility and inclusion, Pan American solidarity, equity in health, and social participation. 3