2.1 General considerations on the rights to life and humane treatment in relation to the right to health 120. The Inter-American Commission and Court have repeatedly interpreted Article 5(1) of the American Convention to be is directly and immediately linked to attention to human health117 and it has noted that the absence of adequate medical care may lead to a violation of this provision. 118 This intrinsic relationship is an expression of the interdependence and indivisibility between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social, and cultural rights on the other. In the words of the Court, both groups of rights should be “fully understood as human rights, without any rank and enforceable in all the cases before competent authorities.” 119 121. The Court has indicated: “The eventual provision of medical care in institutions without the proper authorization, the infrastructure and hygiene of which are inadequate for the provision of medical services, or by professionals who do not have the appropriate qualifications for such activities, could have a significant impact on the rights to life and to integrity of the patient.” 120 122. In order to prevent violations of life and integrity as the result of inadequate provision of health services, the services must satisfy the principles of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of medical services. Those obligations should be “geared” to satisfying those principles121, which were conceptualized by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 14 as “essential and interrelated” in the following terms: 117 IACHR. Report No. 102/13. Merits. TGGL. Ecuador. November 5, 2013. Para. 138; I/A Court HR. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 130; and Case of Vera Vera and one other v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 43. Regarding inter-American regulation and developments of components of the right to health that may be relevant when analyzing cases such as the instant case, the Court has recapitulated: “The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man establishes at Article XI that every person has the right “to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to … medical care, to the extent permitted by public and community resources.” Article 45 of the Charter of the OAS requires that the member states “dedicate every effort to the … [d]evelopment of an efficient social security policy.” In this regard, Article 10 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Ecuador on March 25, 1993, establishes that every person has the right to health, understood as the enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental, and social well-being, and it indicates that health is a public good. In addition, in July 2012, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States emphasized the quality of health facilities, assets, and services, which requires the presence of trained medical personnel, as well as adequate sanitary conditions.” See also. I/A Court HR. Albán Cornejo and others v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 117. 118 IACHR. Report No. 102/13. Merits. TGGL. Ecuador. November 5, 2013. Para. 138; I/A Court HR. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 130. See Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 157, and Case of Vera Vera and one other v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 44. 119 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009 Series C No. 198, para. 101. Along the same lines, see United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 9, supra, para. 10. See also: Case of Airey v. Ireland, No. 6289/73. Judgment of October 9, 1979, para. 26 and Case of Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lituania, Nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00. Second Section Judgment of July 27, 2004, para. 47. In the case of Airey v. Ireland the European Court noted: “Whilst the Convention sets forth what are essentially civil and political rights, many of them have implications of a social or economic nature. The Court therefore considers, like the Commission, that the mere fact that an interpretation of the Convention may extend into the sphere of social and economic rights should not be a decisive factor against such an interpretation; there is no water-tight division separating that sphere from the field covered by the Convention.” 120 I/A Court HR. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para.149, citing United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 14. 121 I/A Court HR. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261. 24