on public officials and on the head or person in charge of a hospital, clinic or other similar establishment.365 216. Consequently, the disclosure of the information on Manuela’s sexual and reproductive health based on imprecise and contradictory legislation did not comply with the requirement of legality and, therefore, constituted a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 11 and 26 of the Convention. Despite this, the Court finds it necessary in the instant case to analyze the purpose, suitability, necessity and proportionality of the restriction. Purpose and suitability of the restriction 217. The second limitation of any restriction relates to the purpose of the restrictive measure; in other words, the reason cited to justify the restriction must be one permitted by the American Convention. According to the State, the purpose of the restriction was to avoid more serious consequences for the life and health of the infant, and to comply with the international obligation to investigate, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish offenses committed against children. 218. Regarding the first purpose indicated by the State, the Court notes that, according to the information possessed by the physician when she made her report, Manuela had indicated that the infant was dead.366 Moreover, the actions taken by the prosecution in this case reveal that the report was treated as a report of an offense that had already taken place, and not as a situation in which the life of a newborn was in danger.367 Therefore, the Court considers that, in the instant case, the purpose of the restriction was not to protect the life of a child, but rather to comply with the international obligation to investigate, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish offenses committed against children, which is in conformity with the Convention. Thus, the Court notes that the report made in this case was an appropriate measure to achieve that purpose. Necessity of the restriction 219. To evaluate the necessity of the measure, the alternatives that existed to achieve the legitimate purpose sought must be examined in order to decide whether they represented greater or lesser harm.368 In this regard, the Court notes that the report of, or information concerning, the possible perpetration of an offense by someone who has not acquired this knowledge through the medical treatment of the woman could also be appropriate. In such cases, the right to the protection of the health data of the person receiving medical care would not be violated. However, in the instant case, it is not certain that it would haves been possible Article 312 of the Criminal Code establishes that: “The public official or employee, law enforcement agent or public authority who, in the exercise of his functions or due to them, becomes aware that a punishable act has been perpetrated and fails to report this to the competent official within twenty-four hours shall be sanctioned with a penalty of fifty to one hundred days-fine [Note: a fine based on the income of the person concerned]. The same punishment shall be imposed on the head or person in charge of a hospital, clinic or other similar public or private establishment, who fails to inform the competent official within eight hours that an injured person has been admitted, in cases in which it is reasonable to consider that the injuries originated from an offense.” Criminal Code of El Salvador, Legislative Decree No. 1030 of 1997, article 312. Available at: https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/ Codigo_Penal_El_Salvador.pdf 365 366 Cf. Emergency record of February 27, 2008 (evidence file, folio 16). In this regard, the Court underlines that, following the report, the person investigating the case wanted to go to Manuela’s house; however, the police indicated that “it was very far away” and, therefore, they went next morning. Cf. Statement by the person investigating the case transcribed in the judgment handed down by the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán, on August 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 158). 367 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 206, and Advisory Opinion OC-28/21 of June 7, 2021, supra, para. 121. 368 63