itself explicitly on Article 4(1) of the Convention, 47 it must be understood that it was taking into account the interpretation made in “Street Children.” In other words, it should be presumed that the Decision complied with what is now called “conventionality control,” 48 and applied it. II.- SHIFT IN THE COURT’S CASE LAW. This Judgment brings up an important change, breaking away from the recent case law in three different ways. First, by limiting the scope of what had already been defined by the Court’s case law; secondly, regarding the application of Article 4(1) to this case; and third, in as much as it leaves many questions unanswered. A.- Limiting the scope of the Court’s case law. This judgment seems to restrict the Court’s—up to now—consistent and uniform case law on the matter. This time around, the Court omits the phrase “[o]wing (to the) fundamental nature (of the right to life), restrictive approaches to it are inadmissible.” Although this has happened in previous decisions, the Judgment’s omission of this phrase becomes particularly relevant, because two preliminary annotations precede the reiteration of all other ideas regarding the right to life. The first annotation points out that “[t]o date, the Court’s case law has not ruled on the disputes that have arisen in this case”, and the second asserts that, “[i]n cases of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and deaths that can be attributed to the failure of the States to adopt measures, the Court has indicated that the right to life is a fundamental human right, the full enjoyment of which is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights.” 49 With these two annotations the Judgment would suggest that the Court’s case law in reference to the right to life is only applicable to “extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and deaths that can be attributed to the failure of the States to adopt measures”. Therefore, the right to life would not be applicable to the case under review because it applies to a different set of facts. Hence, the Judgment would be severely limiting the scope of what has already been set by the Court’s case law on this matter. B.- Inapplicability of Article 4(1) to the case under study. The Judgment’s aforementioned statements are the basis for its following assertions: “that “conception” in the sense of Article 4(1) occurs at the moment when the embryo becomes implanted in the uterus, which explains why, before this event, Article 4 of the Convention would not be applicable;” 50 “it is not admissible to grant the status of person to the embryo;” 51 and 47 Para. 76. 48 Case of Cabrera-García and Montiel-Flores v. Mexico, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 225. 49 Para. 172. 50 Para. 264. 51 Para. 223.