Convention makes the absolute protection of the ‘right to life’ of the embryo compulsory and, consequently, makes it obligatory to prohibit IVF because it entails the loss of embryos”, stating also that it will “analyze whether the interpretation of the Convention that substantiated the interferences that occurred […] is admissible in light of this treaty, bearing in mind the pertinent sources of international law.” 9 Now, it is true that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) and the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the Representatives”), alleged that the aforementioned Decision violated the following Articles of the Convention: 11(2) (“Right to Privacy”), 17(2) (“Rights of the Family”) and 24 (“Right to Equal Protection”), in conjunction with Articles 1(1) (“Obligation to Respect Rights”) and 2 (“Domestic Legal Effects”). Nevertheless, it is also true that one of the Representatives also alleged the violation of Articles 4(1) (“Right to Life”), 5(1) (“Right to Humane Treatment”), and 7 (“Right to Personal Liberty”). 10 In addition, the aforementioned Decision is explicitly based on Article 4(1). Hence, the issue at stake should not have been addressed in the way the Court did, but from the opposite perspective. In fact, considering the applicable customary law, 11 this case should determine whether, in light of the Convention, 12 the aforementioned Decision 13 is internationally licit or not. 14 This requires, first and foremost, contrasting this act of the State with Article 4(1), with the international obligation that the very State adduced as its justification. Only once this issue is elucidated will it be possible to address the conformity of the Decision with Articles 5(1), 11(2), 17(2) and 24. 9 Para. 162 [note of the translator: and 171]. 10 Para. 7. 11 Contained in the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, prepared by the International Law Commission of the U.N., adopted by Resolution approved by the General Assembly [based on the Report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/589 and Corr. 1)] 56/83. Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, 85th plenary meeting, 12 December 2001, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 and corrigendum (A/56/10 and Corr. 1 and 2). 2 Ibid. (hereinafter “Draft on the State’s International Responsibility”). 12 Art. 62(3) of the Convention, already referred to. 13 Art. 4 of the Draft on the State’s International Responsibility: “Conduct of organs of a State. 1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State. 2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.” 14 Articles of the Draft on the State’s International Responsibility: “Article 1. Responsibility of a State for its internationally wrongful acts. Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State”; “Article 2. Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State. There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission: (a) is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State”; and “Article 3. Characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful. The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.”