25. It stated that the Forensic Medical Institute of San Miguel found in its autopsy conducted on February 28, 2008, that the remains corresponded to the cadaver of a newborn, whose umbilical cord had been pulled out at the base and who had died by mechanical asphyxia. The State indicated that it was based on this that on February 28, 2008, Manuela was arrested while she was at the Hospital Nacional de San Francisco de Gotera. 26. It stated that, based on the results of the above-referenced autopsy, the alleged victim was criminally charged and convicted for the crime of aggravated homicide, and that the process complied with all due process guarantees. In this regard, it stated that the Chief Justice of the Criminal Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, who heard the case against Manuela, said that at all stages of the process, the rights and guarantees of the alleged victim were respected. 27. The State also indicated that Manuela received adequate medical care before and after being deprived of liberty. Specifically, it stated that in 2008, she was cared for at the emergency room of the Hospital Nacional San Francisco de Gotera for “prematurely giving birth outside the hospital.” It stated that she was stabilized in observance of existing hospital protocol for caring for women who have given birth this way, and that she was released seven days later based on her recovery and medical progress. 28. It also stated that in 2009, she was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease by Hospital Nacional Rosales, where she was systematically given chemotherapy from February to May 2009. It stated that the treatment was not restarted until October 10 of that year due to a relapse on the right side of her neck, and that the last round of chemotherapy was administered on April 19, 2010. It said that one day later, on April 20, 2010, the alleged victim presented with a heart attack that ended her life. 29. It stated that measures to provide healthcare to Manuela were also taken inside the penitentiary system. In this regard, it said that in 2009, the “Criminological Prevention and Sentence Execution Team of the San Miguel Prison” decided to transfer Manuela from the San Miguel Prison and Pretrial Detention Center to the Ilopango Women’s Reform Center so the alleged victim could receive the medical care she needed. 30. Likewise, it pointed to a series of measures it has implemented to guarantee the rights of Salvadoran women to sexual and reproductive health. It stated that between 2011 in 2012, technical operational guidelines were approved for the abortion plan strategy to provide care for women in the preconception, partum, and post-partum stages, as well as a Clinical Guide to Gynecology and Obstetrics. It added that national hospital staff have been trained on how to safely handle miscarriages and provide postpartum care, and that these measures have reduced maternal mortality. It stated that the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic has also provided training on the rights of women, with a special emphasis on public defense in crimes related to the life of developing humans, with the goal of guaranteeing the rights of women tried or convicted for the these types of crimes. It also stated that it has an Internal Office of Comprehensive Services for women deprived of liberty in Ilopango, the objective of which is to protect system inmates from any health vulnerability. 31. It addressed El Salvador’s abortion ban, indicating that although Article 133 establishes that abortion under any circumstances is a crime, a judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice in 2007 that found the law unconstitutional indicated a need to amend the article and provide for exceptions to the prohibition. It stated that based on this, on October 17, 2016, a bill was presented to amend the law by permitting pregnancies to be terminated for three reasons: rape of women and girls; risk to the life of the mother; and unviability of life outside the womb. It added that another judgment of the Supreme Court recognized the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ interpretation as to the legal existence of personhood and the rights recognized thereof. III. A. ESTABLISHED FACTS Context 4