(...) That the multiple versions of the story offered by the accused that are inconsistent and improbable based on logic and medicine lead those rendering judgment to consider her possible motivations for trying to hide the act she had committed—first, that she knew she was pregnant and that the pregnancy was the result of infidelity, as she was married; for which reason, having the capacity to choose between having the baby, caring for the baby, feeding it, and living for it, as any biological mother would naturally do, she chose to behave contrary to nature itself and the requirements of the law that governs us, and so she waited to give birth to the baby to then get rid of it by throwing in the septic pit (...) (...) In addition, to review the different versions provided by the accused to the different people who interviewed her, such as for example, "that she was not aware of anything and that due to the pain or the dysentery, the child came and she fainted, or at worst, while she was unconscious, a different person threw the child in the septic pit; these are not believable and do not seem probable under the standards of basic human understanding, as the maternal instinct is to protect her child, and all complications during birth generally lead to seeking immediate medical care, or at least the assistance of the closest relatives in securing care, not to deprive a newborn of its life. (...) in this case, the accused—in her desire to get rid of the result of her pregnancy after giving birth, as it was the result of infidelity, and given the biological father’s expressed refusal to accept responsibility—in all awareness of seeing it alive, consciously sought the right means and place of making it disappear (...) and in this case, the conduct is even more reproachable because the conduct is of a mother toward her own son.58 (…) 2. That there is no legal motive that could justify a woman killing a son, especially not a newborn, as this is indefensible, and the process has provided evidence that her only motive for doing so was to avoid public criticism or rejection by her husband due to the infidelity committed (...)59; (…) 4. Regarding the circumstances surrounding the action: It is clear that the defendant is extremely uneducated, from the countryside and a place with traditional ways of life; however, this does not justify her criminal conduct, although such factors are taken into account in imposing the minimum punishment for the crime of which she is convicted (…).60 78. The Commission notes that the alleged victim’s defense attorney did not appeal the conviction through a cassation remedy. The petitioner alleged—and the State did not dispute—that the failure to appeal was the result of a decision made by the public defender and his lack of diligence in exercising Manuela's legal defense, as he failed to inform her and her family of the opportunity to appeal the judgment.61 79. On August 26, 2008, the Criminal Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera notified the director of the Pretrial and Sentence Execution Center of the San Miguel prison that the guilty verdict against Manuela was final and that the alleged victim was at the disposal of the Second Court of Penitentiary Supervision and Execution of the San Miguel City Prison.62 5. Health situation of the alleged victim before and while she was deprived of liberty Annex 27. Criminal case file TS066/2008. Judgment issued by the Criminal Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, Department of Morazán, August 11, 2008. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pg. 137-148. 59 Annex 27. Criminal case file TS066/2008. Judgment issued by the Criminal Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, Department of Morazán, August 11, 2008. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pg. 147. 60 Annex 27. Criminal case file TS066/2008. Judgment issued by the Criminal Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, Department of Morazán, August 11, 2008. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pg. 147.1. 61 Initial petition of March 21, 2012. 62 Annex 28. Criminal case file TS066/2008.Notification of the final guilty verdict to the Director of the Pretrial and Sentence Execution Center of San Miguel of August 26, 2008, Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pg. 151. 58 14