paternal irresponsibility noted by her biological father, with full awareness, seeing the baby alive, deliberately sought the appropriate means and place to make it disappear, thus taking from her child […] the opportunity to live […] and, in this case, it is all the more reprehensible that this was an act of a mother towards her own child.265 153. The Court notes that, in its judgment, the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera ruled out the possibility that the death had been accidental when assuming that the maternal instinct that Manuela should have had meant that she would have protected her child and sought help immediately. That court made this assertion without having any evidence that carefully analyzed Manuela’s health (supra paras. 137 to 139), in order to be able to determine reliably that what happened was not, for example, the result of the obstetric emergency suffered by Manuela. In addition, on the basis of the stereotype that women must respond to the maternal instinct and sacrifice themselves for their children at all times, the court assumed that, regardless of her state of health, by failing to help to protect her child, Manuela’s actions revealed that she wished to take the life of her newborn intentionally. Thus, the court alleged that Manuela should have placed the possible life of her son before her own life, even if she was unconscious, and presumed her bad faith because she did not do so.266 154. Additionally, the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera assumed that Manuela should feel ashamed of her pregnancy and, therefore, supposedly hid it from her family, and presumed that this was the reason why she had decided to take the life of the newborn. This presumption was not based on evidence, but rather on the stereotype that a woman who has sexual relations outside her marriage is dishonorable and immoral. 155. Based on the foregoing considerations, this Court notes that the reasoning provided by the Trial Court demonstrates that gender stereotypes were used to supplement the court’s lack of sufficient evidence. Thus, the judgment convicting Manuela suffers from all the prejudices inherent in a patriarchal system and downplays the factual circumstances and motivations. It reprimands Manuela as if she had violated duties considered inherent in her gender and indirectly criticizes her sexual conduct. It minimizes and disregards that a possible reason for the desire to conceal her supposed error was to evade the disapproval of an environment created by traditional androcentric values. Consequently, it constituted a violation of the right to presumption of innocence, the right to be tried by an impartial court, and the obligation to state the reasons for judicial decisions. 156. In addition, the Commission and the representatives have argued that this decision was also discriminatory. Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes that the States Parties “undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” While Article 24 stipulates that “[a]ll persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.” The Court has indicated that this article has a formal aspect that establishes equality before the law, and a substantive aspect that orders the adoption of positive measures in favor of groups that have historically been marginalized or discriminated against owing to the factors referred to in Article 1(1) of the American Convention.267 Judgment handed down by the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán, on August 11, 2008 (evidence file, folios 160, 164 and 165). 265 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 68/2019, concerning Sara del Rosario Rogel García, Berta Margarita Arana Hernández and Evelyn Beatriz Hernández Cruz (El Salvador), A/HRC/WGAD/2019/68 on March 4, 2020, para. 110. 266 Cf. Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil, supra, para. 199, and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 167. 267 46