also argued that the State had failed to adopt measures to provide comprehensive care to the presumed victims that took into account the different factors of vulnerability that coalesced and resulted in a specific form of discrimination owing to their intersection. Consequently, the Court will analyze whether discrimination existed in this case. Also, bearing in mind that, in this case, it has been alleged that several individuals were victims of discrimination for similar reasons, the Court will analyze each reason for which they were discriminated against separately, as appropriate. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Court understands that the combination of factors of discrimination in an intersectional manner resulted in a discriminatory experience that differs from the simple accumulation of different reasons for the discrimination against a person.146 129. In this regard, the Court recalls that, as a cross-cutting condition for the accessibility of its health services,147 the State is obliged to guarantee equal treatment to all. Thus, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, discriminatory treatment is prohibited,148 “for reasons of race, color, sex, […] economic status, birth, or any other social condition.”149 The Court recalls that the list of elements by virtue of which discrimination is prohibited under Article 1(1) of the American Convention is neither exhaustive nor restrictive, merely indicative. Thus, the wording of this article leaves the criteria open with the inclusion of the phrase “any other social condition” in order to incorporate other categories that were not explicitly indicated. 150 130. In this regard, the Court indicates that, within the Convention’s sphere of protection, HIV is a factor based on which discrimination is prohibited under the phrase “any other social condition” in Article 1(1) of the Convention.151 The Court underscores that the right to equality and non-discrimination has two aspects: a negative one related to the prohibition of arbitrary differences in treatment, and a positive one related to the State obligation to create conditions of real equality for groups that have historically been excluded or that are at greater risk of being discriminated against, 152 as in the case of people living with HIV.153 The obligation to adopt positive measures is increased with regard to the protection of Cf. Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 277. 146 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 122. Cf. General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, August 11, 2000, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 12. In this regard, the General Comment indicates that accessibility has four overlapping dimensions, one of them is that of non-discrimination, which means that “health facilities, goods and services must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable or marginalized sections of the population, in law and in fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds.” 147 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 122. 148 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 204, and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 122. 149 150 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239 para. 85, and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 122. Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 255. 151 Cf. Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 267, and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 123. 152 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 236. 153 46