VIII MERITS 91. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the facts that Manuela was pregnant, gave birth and suffered from preeclampsia, a complication of pregnancy which, as it constitutes a serious health risk, should be characterized as an obstetric emergency. 92. What is in dispute is the State’s alleged responsibility for the detention, prosecution and conviction of the presumed victim for aggravated homicide following the obstetric emergency that she suffered, and also for the medical care that the presumed victim received, and the alleged violation of professional secrecy by the medical staff who attended her. Bearing in mind that this case does not refer to the occurrence of a therapeutic abortion, the context established above will only be taken into account to the extent that it relates to the purpose of the dispute. 93. Based on the arguments of the parties and the Commission, in the instant case, the Court will examine: (1) the rights to personal liberty and presumption of innocence, in relation to the obligations to respect rights and to adopt domestic legal provisions; (2) the rights to judicial guarantees, personal integrity and equality before the law, in relation to the obligations to respect rights without discrimination and to adopt domestic legal provisions; (3) the rights to life, personal integrity, health, privacy, and equality before the law, in relation to the obligation to respect rights without discrimination and to adopt domestic legal provisions and (4) the right to personal integrity of the family members, in relation to the obligation to respect rights. VIII-1 RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY182 AND PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE183 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT RIGHTS184 AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS185 A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 94. The Commission argued that the initial detention of the presumed victim was unlawful because it was not in keeping with in flagrante delicto. It also considered that the pretrial detention of Manuela “was arbitrary from the outset and disregarded the principle of presumption of innocence” because the judicial decisions that imposed this presumed that, owing to the gravity of the crime, the presumed victim might obstruct the proceedings. It stressed that “article 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of El Salvador explicitly established that, in a case of aggravated homicide, pretrial detention cannot be replaced by any other measure.” In addition, it underlined that the presumed victim had no effective judicial remedy to contest the fact that her pretrial detention “contravened the Convention.” 95. The representatives argued that “Manuela’s detention was unlawful and arbitrary because: (a) she was detained by application of a presumption of in flagrante delicto which is contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty; (b) she was not informed of the reasons for her detention and the charges against her; (c) her pretrial detention was ordered based on a legal presumption of guilt; (d) her criminal trial was conducted in contravention of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, and (e) the laws applied were contrary to the principle of 182 Article 7 of the Convention. 183 Article 8(2) of the Convention. 184 Article 1(1) of the Convention. 185 Article 2 of the Convention. 30