9. Amici Curiae. The Court received 58 amicus curiae briefs6 submitted by: 1) the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ);7 2) María Lina Carrera, Gloria Orrego Hoyos and Natalia Saralegui Ferrante;8 3) the Fundación Nueva Democracia;9 4) the Pasos por la Vida civil association;10 5) Lawyers for Life and other organizations;11 6) the Asociación Salud y Familia;12 7) Crece Por Mi País and other organizations, together with members of the Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Costa Rica;13 8) the Asociación para la Promoción de (b) for the representatives of the presumed victims: Morena Herrera, and Sara García, lawyers of the Colectiva Feminista para el Desarrollo Local of El Salvador, and Catalina Martínez, Carmen Martínez, and Edward Pérez, lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights, and (c) for the State of El Salvador: Ana Elizabeth Cubias Medina, Director of Comprehensive Social Development of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador and the State’s Agent; Luis Elmer Hernández Hernández, Legal Consultant to the Ministry of Health of El Salvador; Lorena Mercedes González Zura, National Coordinator of the Public Criminal Defense Service of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of El Salvador; Carlos Javier Hernández Pérez, Subdirector General of Legal Affairs of the General Directorate of Prisons of El Salvador, and Alfredo Adolfo Romero Díaz, Forensic Physician of the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador. The State argued that “the amicus curiae contain continuous mentions of the supposed effects of the criminal law on abortion; therefore, the Court is again asked to exclude any analysis of the criminal law on abortion in El Salvador from the instant case.” The State also indicated that “neither should the Court admit the arguments regarding a supposed violation of Manuela’s right to privacy,” or the arguments concerning a context of structural discrimination against women, medical confidentiality, the right of women to a life free of obstetric violence, torture and, in general, any “imprecise references” to what happened to Manuela. In this regard, the Court recalls that, according to its Rules of Procedure, the expression amicus curiae “refers to the person or institution who is unrelated to the case and to the proceeding and submits to the Court reasoned arguments on the facts contained in the presentation of the case or legal considerations on the subject-matter of the proceeding by means of a document or an argument presented at a hearing.” Considering that it is not incumbent on the Court to rule on whether or not such briefs are correct or on any requests or petitions they contain, the State’s observations do not affect the admissibility of the amici curiae, without prejudice to the eventual relevance of such considerations when assessing the information they provide. Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 15, and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, footnote 5. 6 The brief was signed by Grégor Puppinck and Pablo Nuevo López. It contained considerations on the privacy of health-related information. 7 The brief was signed by María Lina Carrera, Gloria Orrego Hoyos and Natalia Saralegui Ferrante. It contained considerations on the criminalization of women for obstetric events in different countries in the region. 8 The brief was signed by María Camila Ospina Navarro and Juan Pablo Rodríguez Martínez. It contained considerations on the reasons why the Court should not rule on abortion in this case. 9 The brief was signed by María Teresa Angulo Guillermo and Ángel Alfonso Jasso García. It contained considerations on how the prohibition of abortion in El Salvador supported the protection of life, and was constitutional, essential, and pursuant to the Convention. 10 The brief was signed by Michelle Cretella, Teresa Collett, Stefano Gennarini, Aude Mirkovic for Claude de Martel, Nicola Speranza, Sharon Slater, Bob Lalonde, Lord Leomer B. Pomperada, Brian S. Brown, Karolina Pawlowska, Wendy Wixom, Brian Scarnecchia, Catherine Glenn Foster, Thomas Jacobson, Sonnie Ekwowusi, JeanMarie Le Méné, Julia Regina de Cardenal, Michelle Zacapa, Sérgio Henrique Cabral Sant'Ana, Marjorie Dannenfelser, Charles E. Donovan, Sara I. Larín Hemandez, Ligia Briz, Mario Correa Bascuñán, Gonzalo lbáñez Santa María, Alfonso Aguilar, Mario Alberto Romo Gutierrez, Eduardo Verástegui, and Ligia De Jesus Castaldi. It contained considerations on why the prohibition of the aggravated homicide of the newborn child in El Salvador is mandatory under international human rights law. 11 The brief was signed by Elvira Méndez Méndez. It contained considerations on the ethical obligations of doctors towards their patients, the treatment of women in situations of obstetric emergency in El Salvador, and the exercise of the medical profession under “institutional coercion” in El Salvador. 12 The brief was signed by Mónica Araya Esquivel, Marcela Piedra, Gerardo Bogantes, Jórge Gómez, Ileana Flores, Víctor Quirós, Gerardo Soto, Florita Rodríguez, Carlos Esquivel, Shirley Díaz, Mariano Murillo, Carmen Chan, Dragos Dolanescu, Erick Rodríguez, Harllan Hoepelman, Ignacio Alpízar, Jonathan Prendas, Marulin Azofeifa, Melvin Núñez, Nidia Céspedes. It contained considerations on how “the petitioner had fabricated cases such as this one in order to generate a movement of disinformation among the population and put pressure on the State of El Salvador to amend its laws that protect life starting at conception.” 13 6