147. Indeed, determination of when a State has failed to comply with the obligation should be made on the basis of the particularities of its laws and the available resources. However, the Court recognizes that the leeway enjoyed by States for the effective realization of the ESCER does not justify inaction in protecting them. Thus, in this case, the Court recalls that it has been demonstrated that the State, despite having a series of laws and programs aimed at caring for people living with HIV, failed to provide medical treatment before 2004 to ensure the right to health of these individuals, with the exception of treating a limited number of them; rather it entrusted this task to non-governmental organizations. The State acknowledged this situation before the Court on several occasions and sought to justify the lack of progressive medical care before 2004 despite the existence of domestic laws that established an obligation of protection for different authorities. Consequently, the Court considers that the State’s inaction, prior to 2004, constituted non-compliance with the State obligations in relation to progressive protection of the right to health, in violation of Article 26 of the American Convention. 148. Consequently, owing to the State inaction with regard to protection of the right to health of the population of people living with HIV, despite the existence of an international obligation and State regulations, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for violating the principle of progressivity contained in Article 26 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. B.4.1.3. Analysis of compliance with the obligations of progressivity in relation to the alleged legal barriers concerning intellectual property and administrative contracting 149. The Court notes that the representatives’ petition refers specifically to the legal barriers concerning intellectual property and administrative contracting practices that allegedly constituted retrogressive measures because they had prevented the health system from having a permanent supply of antiretroviral drugs. In the representatives’ opinion, these barriers had prevented the State from using the maximum resources available to prevent the propagation of the virus and to ensure the right to health. In this regard, the Court notes that the Commission did not refer directly to the Law on Industrial Property in its Merits Report as an obstacle to compliance with the State’s obligation to respond to HIV, but it did mention some commitments made by the Government during a meeting held by the President of Guatemala, the Ministry of Public Health, the Executive Director of the AIDS Prevention Foundation, and the Director of the Asociación de Salud Integral (ASI).174 The meeting was held following the Constitutional Court’s ruling of January 29, 2003. 150. The Court considers that the facts contained in the Merits Report concerning the commitments made by the President following the ruling of the Constitutional Court; namely, those related to the adoption of various measures: (i) to annul Decree No. 9-2003, (ii) to promulgate Decree No. 34-2004, and (iii) to promulgate Decree 30-2005, are of a contextual nature for the effects of this case. In other words, these facts are relevant “to provide a framework for the facts that are alleged to have led to violations [of human rights] in the context of the specific circumstances in which they took place.”175 Thus, the facts mentioned by the Commission as some of the commitments made by the Government Cf. IACHR, Merits Report No. 2/16, Luis Ronaldo Cuscul Pivaral and other persons living with HIV/AIDS, Guatemala, April 13, 2016 (merits file, folio 30). 174 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 53, and Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 67. 175 52