erythematosus that ‘had been exacerbated by lupus nephritis.’” Consequently, he stressed that ‘performance of a medical procedure on her is of vital importance because, if this is not done, there is a strong probability of maternal death, as she is 13 weeks pregnant with an anencephalic fetus, which is a severe anomaly incompatible with life outside the uterus.’ In this regard, the opinion of the competent authority or institution was requested in order to undertake the recommended medical procedure.” iii) “On April 11, 2013, an application for amparo was filed against the Director, the Head of the Legal Unit, and the Head of the Perinatology Service of the ‘Dr. Raúl Arguello Escalón´ National Maternity Hospital. The application requested that, in order to safeguard the right to life of B., her medical intervention not be conditioned to the prior authorization of the ‘competent authority,’ as established in the note of March 22, 2013. iv) “On April 12, 2013, the Medical Committee […] considered the matter and agreed to end the pregnancy.” v) “On April 17, 2013, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Constitutional Chamber”) issued its decision admitting the application for amparo filed in order to preserve the right to life and health of B.” In the said decision, the Constitutional Chamber “decided to adopt preventive measures so that the defendant authorities would guarantee the right to life and health, both physical and mental, of B., providing the necessary and appropriate medical treatment for the preservation of these rights, while this amparo is being processed.” vi) “B. returned to the ‘Dr. Raúl Arguello Escalón´ National Maternity Hospital. On April 18, 2013, B. was interned in this medical center and received certain medication. However, her pregnancy was not terminated because the medical professionals who would perform the procedure had not been selected.” 3. The procedure relating to the request for preventive measures: i) “On April 18 and 24, 2013, the Commission received communications informing it of the […] facts that had occurred with regard to B. in the State of El Salvador.” ii) “On April 22, 2013, the Commission sent a request for information to the State, requiring it to forward, within 72 hours, any information it considered pertinent on the situation of B., and the medical treatment with which she was being provided.” iii) “On April 26, 2013, the State of El Salvador presented its answer to the Commission’s request.” iv) “On April 29, 2013, the representatives presented updated information. They indicated that, on April 26, 2013, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had issued a new decision.” v) “On April 29, 2013, the Commission asked the State of El Salvador to adopt preventive measures to protect the life, personal integrity, and health of B., based on: (i) the recommendations of the Medical Committee of the National Maternity Hospital; (ii) the fact that the fetus is anencephalic; (iii) the absence of a prompt ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice on the application for amparo filed on April 11, 2013, and (iv) the effects that the passage of time would have on the rights of B. Thus, the Commission requested that the State of El Salvador: (1) adopt the necessary measures to implement the treatment recommended by the Medical Committee […], in order to safeguard the life, personal integrity, and health of B., and (2) reach an agreement with the beneficiary and her representatives on any measure to be adopted.” 2