Judgment T-760/08 on the Right to Health unable, for reasons beyond their control, to exercise that right themselves by using means at its disposal.” (iii) The obligation to fulfill (promote) the right to health “requires the States to undertake activities to promote, maintain and restore health to the population.” (p. 5 #3.4.2.9.3.) 5. What was the court’s reasoning in reaching its decisions? - State violated previously imposed obligations to progressively realize universal coverage and unification of health system. Law 100, enacted in 1993, required the progressive unification in the contributory and subsidized regimes to enable all Colombians to be covered by the health system by 2001. At the date of this decision, the state failed to follow through with its obligations to progressively realize these goals: - “no program realized that defines specific goals for the progressive rapprochement of the two plans nor a timetable that would support such a goal, setting clear deadlines for the accomplishment of each step. In other words, there now exists a violation by the State of its constitutional obligation of progressive fulfillment consisting in the unification of the obligatory benefit plans to guarantee the right to health on equal terms. While it is an obligation of progressive fulfillment, the State currently violates the minimum degree of compliance as it has not adopted a plan, with its own timetable, to advance the unification of the benefit plans.” (p. 19 #6.1.2.1.1) 6. What evidence did the court use to substantiate its decision on issues related to resources? - Need to allocate resources depends on urgency of situation: - “The Court does not find that the positive aspects of a law are always subject to a gradual and progressive protection. When the failure to meet the minimum obligations places the holder of the right to health in imminent danger of suffering unreasonable harm, such holder can immediately claim the judicial protection of the law. The approach suggested by the case law to determine when such a situation applies is one of urgency” - “Some of the obligations that arise from a fundamental right and that have a programmatic character, are to be carried out immediately, either because they require a simple action of the State, which does not require additional resources (e.g., the obligation to provide information of their rights to patients before undergoing a medical treatment), or because, despite the need to mobilize resources required, the severity and urgency of the case requires an immediate state action (e.g., the obligation to take appropriate steps to ensure