79. On October 10, 2002, the General Directorate of Health Regulation, Surveillance and Control sent a communication to the Constitutional Court in which it reported that on August 20, 2002, the President of the Republic met with the Minister of Health and the President of the Sector Coordinating Association for the Fight against AIDS, and representatives of persons living with HIV/AIDS.38 It claimed that at that meeting the President authorized a special budget outlay of 500,000 quetzals “to meet the requirements of persons with HIV/AIDS.”39 80. For their part, the claimants informed the Constitutional Court that said amount would be enough to treat the persons with HIV/AIDS “at least for the last half of the year.”40 They further contended that notwithstanding, “the reasons prompting the filing of the amparo suit subsist because even though it is true the money is deposited, for one reason or another the antiretroviral treatments for the persons living with HIV/AIDS have not been able to begin.”41 81. On October 18, 2002, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling wherein it held that, because the evidentiary period had concluded, a hearing was convened.42 82. On October 30, 2002, the Ministry of Public Health filed a written submission with the Constitutional Court.43 It contended that there is no evidence of any infringement in this matter inasmuch as “there is no resolution or decision of this Ministry in which there is any indication or evidence of the violation of a right or refusal to provide services to persons afflicted (…) AIDS.”44 It also claimed that “no omission has been committed inasmuch as the State has conducted several activities in benefit of persons living with (…) HIV or who develop (…) AIDS.”45 It further alleged that “medical care has always been provided to persons living with (…) HIV or who develop (…) AIDS.”46 83. The Health Ministry claimed that with regard to economic, social and cultural rights, the State “is obligated to the extent possible.”47 It contended that with respect to persons living with HIV/AIDS, “it has acted to the extent possible.”48 It moved for the amparo claim to be dismissed.49 38 Annex 7. Written submission of the General Directorate of Regulation, Surveillance and Control of Health, dated October 10, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 39 Annex 7. Written submission of the General Directorate of Regulation, Surveillance and Control of Health, dated October 10, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 40 Annex 8. Written submission of Luis Cuscul et al, dated October 29, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 41 Annex 8. Written submission of Luis Cuscul et al, dated October 29, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 42 Annex 9. Ruling of the Constitutional Court dated October 18, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 2003. 2003. 43 Annex 10. Written submission of the Ministry of Public Health dated October 30, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 44 Annex 10. Written submission of the Ministry of Public Health dated October 30, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 45 Annex 10. Written submission of the Ministry of Public Health dated October 30, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 46 Annex 10. Written submission of the Ministry of Public Health dated October 30, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 47 Annex 10. Written submission of the Ministry of Public Health dated October 30, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 48 Annex 10. Written submission of the Ministry of Public Health dated October 30, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 21