157. Regarding the first aspect, this Court has indicated that Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits discrimination de facto or de jure, not only in relation to the rights established in this instrument, but also in relation to all the laws enacted by the State and their application.268 In other words, this article does not merely reiterate the provisions of Article 1(1) of the Convention regarding the obligation of States to respect and to ensure, without any discrimination, the rights recognized in that treaty, but also establishes a right that entails obligations for the State to respect and to ensure the principle of equality and non-discrimination to safeguard other rights and in all its domestic laws,269 because it protects the right to “equal protection of the law”;270 therefore, it also prohibits discrimination derived from any inequality resulting from domestic laws and their application.271 158. The Court has determined that criminal law may be applied in a discriminatory manner if, when sentencing an individual, the judge or court bases its reasoning on negative stereotypes to determine some elements of the criminal responsibility.272 159. In the instant case, the Court has already determined that the criminal court convicted Manuela using gender stereotypes as grounds for its decision. The application of those stereotypes was only possible because Manuela was a woman; and the impact was exacerbated because she was poor and illiterate and lived in a rural area. Therefore, the Court considers that the distinction made in the application of the criminal law was arbitrary and, consequently, discriminatory.273 160. Based on the above, the Court considers that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention which establishes the duty to provide a statement of reasons for decisions and the right to be tried by an impartial court, Article 8(2) of the American Convention which recognizes the presumption of innocence, and Article 24 which establishes equality before the law, in relation to the obligation to respect rights without discrimination established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Manuela. B.3 The sentence imposed on Manuela 161. In this case, there is no doubt that Manuela suffered an obstetric emergency as a result of preeclampsia (supra para. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). The Court underlines that as obstetric emergencies are medical conditions, they cannot automatically lead to a criminal conviction. However, the Court notes that Manuela was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for the crime of aggravated homicide. Although it has not been alleged that the sentence imposed on the presumed victim violated the Convention, the Court has competence to examine the possible violation of Article 5(2) and 5(6) of the Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 186, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 217. 268 269 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 186, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 217. Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 54, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 199. 270 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 209, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 199. 271 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 223. 272 Mutatis mutandis, 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, March 4, 2020, para. 110. 273 47