stated it clearly. It could have utilized a sentence or paragraph in the aforementioned Article 4(1), or it could have enshrined a different Article. It could have even stated it in a different treaty. However, none of this happened. Thus, the relevant Article and the Convention refer solely and exclusively to the “person,” to the “human being.” To sum up, the Convention considers that there is life in a person from the moment when he or she is conceived; in other words, that someone is a “person” or a “human being” from the “moment of conception,” which happens when the egg is fertilized by the spermatozoid. The Convention provides that from this moment there is a “right to have [“every person”’s] life respected”. As a result, there is an obligation to protect this right. A different interpretation of Article 4(1) would deprive the phrase “from the moment of conception” of its ordinary and obvious meaning. A different interpretation would end up assigning no object to this phrase, even though it is strikingly clear that it refers to the “conception” of “every person”. d.- Arbitrary deprivation of this right. Finally, when the previously referred provision establishes that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life, it is implicitly stating that the right of “every person […] to have his life respected” is not absolute, that it allows a restriction, as long as it is not arbitrary. This means that, according to what was understood as arbitrariness when the Convention was drafted—and what is still understood as such—, the restriction cannot be an “act or behavior against justice, reason or the law; based solely on the will or the whim.” 37 The file of this case shows that this element has not been discussed during these proceedings. C.- The Court’s case law. The Court’s case law has, in a steady and consistent fashion, made a precise description of the nature of the right of “every person […] to have his life respected”. The Court has done so in the following terms: “The right to life is a fundamental human right, and the exercise of this right is essential for the exercise of all other human rights. If it is not respected, all rights lack meaning. Owing to the fundamental nature of the right to life, restrictive approaches to it are inadmissible”, 38 and that 37 18th and 22nd editions. 38 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al. v. Guatemala), Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144.