that they should have access to sunscreen, wide hats and sunglasses. Accordingly, the provision of sunscreen, wide hats and sunglasses are not a luxury to PWA but the thin line between good health and serious infirmity, by analogy, it is akin to having access to potable and safe drinking water. 346. The Court notes the uncontroverted submission of amici, that PWA are very susceptible to skin cancer, which is both preventable, and treatable if detected early. Therefore, in order for PWA to be safeguarded from skin cancer, they require sunscreen lotion, wide hats and sunglasses, these are simply for survival and for a better standard of living. 347. The Court notes the Respondent State’s submission that it provides PWA, two bottles of sunscreen lotion every six months, effectively, four bottles of sunscreen lotions annually. While the Court acknowledges and commends this effort, it cannot be considered to meet the standard of “to the maximum of its available resources.” 348. The Court further observes that the situation is exacerbated by the fact that the supply of the bottles is in conjunction with civil society organisations, meaning, the Respondent State’s capacity to supply more sunscreen lotions is undoubtedly under-utilized. 349. The Court notes from the record that the Respondent State has not given statistics regarding distribution of wide hats or sunglasses and reiterates, that it is obligated to distribute such to the maximum of its available resources. Furthermore, the Court underscores that the Respondent State is required to seek international assistance and cooperation in order to fulfil this obligation. 350. In terms of accessibility and acceptability, the Court notes the submission of the amici, that PWA face discriminatory attitudes when they seek medical attention and that they are sometimes ignored or denied treatment. In this regard, the Court observes that the right to health is not accessible or acceptable to PWA. 79