## Facts

- A group of individuals living with HIV/AIDS sought constitutional protection after the public health authority failed to provide prescribed antiretroviral “triple therapy,” related medicines for opportunistic infections, and necessary diagnostic tests.
- The petitioners lacked social-security coverage and could not afford the required treatment and monitoring.
- The petitioners alleged violations of constitutional rights to life, health, personal liberty and security, equality/non-discrimination, and access to the benefits of scientific and technological progress, invoking both constitutional provisions and international human-rights instruments.
- The government argued that limited public funds and competing social demands prevented it from supplying expensive antiretroviral therapy.
- The petition was brought as an *amparo* action before the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether failure to provide medically indicated antiretroviral triple therapy and related care to indigent persons living with HIV/AIDS violates constitutional rights to life and health (and related rights, including equality and access to scientific progress).
2. Whether generalized budgetary constraints justify the State’s refusal to provide life-preserving treatment required by constitutional and international obligations.
3. Whether a court may order specific medical provision and related budgetary and policy measures as remedies in an *amparo* proceeding.

## Decision

- The court granted constitutional relief and found that the failure to provide necessary HIV treatment and related care violated the petitioners’ fundamental rights, with emphasis on life and health.
- The court rejected budget insufficiency as a complete defense and required the State to take measures to secure access to essential treatment for the petitioners.
- The court ordered the Ministry to provide, on a regular and reliable basis, the triple-therapy drugs, medications needed for opportunistic infections, and all required medical examinations for the petitioners.
- The court ordered development of preventive and educational measures, including information and assistance programs addressing HIV/AIDS.
- The court directed executive action to correct or supplement the relevant budget line for AIDS prevention and control and to ensure adequate future appropriations.
- The court declined to extend the remedy to all persons living with HIV/AIDS, limiting direct relief to the named petitioners.

## Legal Principles

- The right to health is judicially enforceable and may require affirmative State action, including provision of essential medicines and clinical monitoring when denial risks serious harm or death.
- Where effective treatment exists for a life-threatening condition, unjustified denial by public authorities can constitute a violation of the right to life as well as the right to health.
- Budgetary constraints and competing priorities do not, by themselves, excuse noncompliance with minimum obligations necessary to protect fundamental rights.
- Constitutional rights to health may be interpreted consistently with international human-rights norms, including duties to take concrete measures toward access to health care and to the benefits of scientific progress.
- Courts may order specific, operational remedies in constitutional protection proceedings, including directives aimed at ensuring funding and implementation, while still limiting relief to the parties before the court.

## Conclusion

The court held that denying indigent people living with HIV/AIDS access to prescribed triple therapy and necessary related care violated fundamental rights, ordered prompt and reliable treatment and testing, and required corrective budgetary and policy actions, while limiting direct relief to the identified petitioners.


Cruz del Valle Bermúdez v. Minister of Health & Social Welfare, Exped. No. 15,789 (Venez. Sup. Ct. Pol.-Admin. Ch. 1999)