in its General Comment No. 22, it pointed out that the right to sexual and reproductive health is indivisible from and interdependent with the other rights that underpin the physical and mental integrity of individuals and their autonomy, such as the right to life, and that the “lack of emergency obstetric care services or denial of abortion often leads to maternal mortality and morbidity, which in turn constitutes a violation of the right to life or security, and in certain circumstances may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”60 In addition, the Committee stated that lowering “rates of maternal mortality and morbidity requires emergency obstetric care and skilled birth attendance […].”61 64. Similarly, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, in its Article 12, establishes that the States have the obligation to provide appropriate services during pregnancy, childbirth and afterwards.62 The Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, in its General Comment No. 24, referring to that article, pointed out “the duty of States parties to ensure women’s right to safe motherhood and emergency obstetric services and they should allocate to these services the maximum extent of available resources.”63 65. The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the ECHR”) has also ruled on this matter. In Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, the ECHR analyzed the denial of medical care under circumstances in which the health care professionals were aware that the life of a pregnant woman was in danger.64 It held that States must take the necessary measures to save the life of persons under their jurisdiction and that that principle applies in the area of public health. Therefore, in the specific case, the provision of adequate medical care was necessary to protect the life of the patient. The ECHR held that the dead woman was the victim of the obvious irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes.” Similarly, the Court notes that, according to the expert, the majority of maternal deaths are preventable and maternal mortality is related to structural faults in the health systems, which indicates that, while maternal deaths are preventable, mechanisms do not always exist to prevent them nor to ensure access to justice for the victims. Cf. Expert opinion of Regina Tamés Noriega by affidavit of May 11, 2022 (evidence file, ff. 2380 – 2381). 60 Cf. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 22 (2016), para. 10. 61 Cf. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 22 (2016), para. 28. “Article 12. 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.” Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Argentina ratified this treaty on June 15, 1985. 62 63 27. Cf. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. General Comment No. 24 (1999), para. 64 This case concerns the death of Ms. Menekşe Şentürk, who was 34 weeks pregnant when she went to the hospital because she felt a pain. There she was attended by a midwife, who found that Ms. Şentürk was not at the end of her pregnancy and that it did not make sense to alert the physician on call to examine her. As she continued to have pain, her husband took her to another public hospital, where she was examined by another midwife who also did not call the gynecologist on duty. As her pains increased, Mr. Şentürk drove his wife to the Ataturk Research and Teaching Hospital. There she was examined and transferred to the Department of Urology, where they diagnosed a renal colic, prescribed medication and recommended that she return after giving birth. As the pain did not subside, her husband took her that night to the hospital of the Medical School of Ege University. There she was taken to the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, where an ultrasound scan showed that the fetus had died and that an immediate operation was necessary to extract it. They were informed that the hospitalization and surgery would have to be paid, for which a deposit of 600 to 700 million Turkish liras was necessary. Mr. Şentürk did not have that sum and, therefore, his wife could not be hospitalized. It was decided to take her to the Hospital of Gynecology and Obstetrics of İzmir (Konak) in an ambulance that did not have medical personnel. Ms. Şentürk died around 11:00 p.m. while she was in the ambulance. Cf. ECHR, Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, No. 13423/09. Judgment of April 9, 2013. 18