As to the meaning and scope of Article 4(1)’s expression “and, in general,” it should be borne in mind that the Convention gives no “special meaning” to these terms, so they must be interpreted according to their “ordinary meaning.” 20 Among the definitions of the ordinary meaning of the term “general”—which are the same as those existing when agreeing on the Convention—are: “common, frequent, usual” and “common to all the individuals that constitute a whole, or to many objects, even if they are of a different nature.” Among the meanings of the expression “in general” are those of “commonly, generally,” and “without specifying or identifying anything in particular.” In order to better understand these terms, it may be useful to consider their antonyms in the way they were understood by the time of the Convention 21—which is the same as their current understanding. These antonyms are the terms “particular,” which means “belonging exclusively to something, or belonging to it especially”, “special, extraordinary, or rarely seen,” “singular or individual, as opposed to universal or general;” “singular,” whose definitions are “sole (unique in its kind),” “extraordinary, rare or excellent;” and “unusual,” meaning “not usual, infrequent.” The rule regarding the “context” of the terms 22 must be also taken into account. Hence, it should be added that when the Article links the expressions “and, in general” with the obligation to “pro[tect] by law” the right of “every person […] to have his life respected,” this provision is stating that this protection must be provided “from the moment of conception” of the relevant “person.” In turn, the rule of the “object and purpose” of a treaty must be used for interpreting the expression “and, in general.” The object and purpose of the Convention is to require States to respect human rights and to ensure their free and full exercise. 23 In turn, the object and purpose of Article 4(1) is the respect of life. Hence, the expression “and, in general” must have an effet utile to this end, so that it contributes effectively to this object and purpose, not providing an exception to it or, a fortiori, a negation of the right to life. In this regard, it must be noted that three countries proposed at the Specialized InterAmerican Conference on Human Rights—where the Convention was approved—the elimination of the sentence “and, in general, from the moment of conception,” so that abortion would not be forbidden. However, the majority of States participating in said Conference rejected this proposal, incorporating the aforementioned sentence in the Convention. 24 In other words, there was an evident intention of leaving no doubt as to the broad protection that the law must give to the right of every person to have his or her life respected, a protection that must be provided even when the person has been conceived or has not yet been born. 20 Art. 31(1) of the Vienna Convention. 21 Ibid. 22 Art. 32(1) of the Vienna Convention. 23 Art. 1(1) of the Convention, previously quoted. 24 Paras. 203 to 205.