Yes, American Convention (instrument deposited on August 21, 1990); Convention of Belém do Pará (instrument deposited on January 26, 1996); and IACPPT (instrument deposited on December 5, 1994) Competence Ratione materiae: IV. ANALYSIS OF DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata: No Articles 1 (obligation to respect rights), 2 (domestic legal effects), 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial/due guarantees), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 11 (right to privacy/ to have honor respected and dignity recognized), 24 (equal protection), 25 (judicial protection), and 26 (progressive development of economic, social, and cultural rights) of the American Convention on Human Rights; Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the IACPPT; and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará Yes. Article 46.2.a of the American Convention applies Rights declared admissible: Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule: Timeliness of the petition: V. Yes, as per Section VI ALLEGED FACTS 1. The petitioners describe the alleged victim as a women who was born on October 30, 1990 in circumstances of extreme poverty, who was diagnosed in 2009 with systemic lupus erythematosus exacerbated by lupus nephritis and rheumatoid arthritis, which they refer to collectively as the "underlying illness." They state that in July 2011 she had a high-risk pregnancy and was referred to the National Maternity Hospital (hereinafter "the Hospital"), where, after a series of medical treatments for anemia, severe lupus condition together with pneumonia, hypertension and pre-eclampsia, she underwent a caesarian section and gave birth to a baby boy on March 4, 2012 who was regarded as premature and diagnosed with respiratory distress and necrotizing enterocolitis and only released from hospital 38 days after he was born. The petitioners say that Beatriz was offered sterilization but she declined it because she feared her child might die and that she would then not be able to try and have another one. 2. They state that in November 2012, Beatriz suspected that she was pregnant and on February 18, 2013 went to the emergency room at the Rosales National Hospital, where she was diagnosed with a highrisk pregnancy in its 11th week. They say that in March she was again referred to that hospital on account of lupus-related injuries. There Beatriz was told that an ultrasound exam showed "no skullcap, with an image typical of an anencephalic fetus. A check-up was recommended in the 20th week”. They report that the defect was confirmed at the Hospital on March 12, 2013 and that the doctors decided to take the case before the Medical Committee "to reach a consensus (sic) on when the pregnancy should be interrupted because anencephaly is incompatible with life". They state that on March 14, 2013, the Head of the Perinatology Unit at the Hospital explained to Beatriz that the fetus had no chances of surviving and that there could be complications with her pregnancy due to her underlying illnesses and the sequels of her previous pregnancy. For that reason, Beatriz asked for her pregnancy to be interrupted, at which point the physician explained to her that her request was not legally permitted. 3. They state that the Medical Committee of the Hospital agreed to file a petition with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (hereinafter "PGR") and to request the opinion of the Minister of Health. 2