In this case, the Constitutional Court held that access to health services for migrants should be granted under conditions of equality (since, according to the Constitution, migrants have the same rights as nationals) and as a consequence, health care should go further beyond the emergency service,  that is now being guaranteed. At a minimum, the Court explained, the state "must guarantee all migrants, including those who are in an irregular situation, not only emergency care with a human rights perspective, but preventive health care with a vigorous approach to public health ", that is, preventive care that avoids health risks for both migrants and the community that receives them.

The Court argued that the services should be extended to a portfolio focused on "preserving life and preventing critical, permanent or future consequences, through the use of health technologies for the care of users with physical, functional or mental impairment. , for any reason and with any degree of severity that compromises his life or functionality ". In the event that the state does not have the money to cover this service, the Court asks the authorities to demonstrate that they have made every effort to use the resources at their disposal.

The Court asks the Government to adopt measures "aimed at obtaining international and national cooperation resources that allow the full realization of migrants' right to health regardless of their migratory status, especially to the most vulnerable: children,mothers head of household ", this, taking into account that as indicated by national and international standards of protection of rights, and in particular the principle of non-discrimination, the right to health must be guaranteed to migrants, regardless of their migratory status .