because they have the biological capacity to conceive. As already mentioned, a belief exists among gynecologists that they must report cases of possible abortions, as in this case where Manuela was reported for a possible abortion. According to expert witness Guillermo Ortiz, this does not occur with other types of offense. 410 In addition, the Court notes that, according to the records, this type of report is not filed by the staff of private clinics, but only by the staff of public hospitals.411 This reveals that the legislative ambiguity does not have an effect on women who have sufficient financial resources to be attended in a private hospital. 255. In the instant case, the medical staff gave priority to filing a report for a supposed offense over providing a medical diagnosis and treatment. In addition, this report, combined with the statement of the treating physician and the subsequent handing over of Manuela’s medical record, was used in criminal proceedings against her, in violation of her rights to privacy and to health. All these actions were influenced by the perception that the prosecution of a presumed offense should prevail over a woman’s rights, and this was discriminatory. 256. In sum, the Court concludes that, in this case, the State failed to ensure the right to health without discrimination, as well as the right to equality established in Articles 24 and 26, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 257. Furthermore, the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convention of Belém do Pará” establishes the right of every woman to a life free from violence and that this right includes the right to be free from all forms of discrimination.412 It also indicates that States must “refrain from engaging in any act or practice of violence against women and ensure that their authorities, officials, agents and institutions act in conformity with this obligation.”413 In this regard, the Court recalls that the protection of human rights is based on the acknowledgement of the existence of certain inviolable characteristics of the human persona that cannot legitimately be impaired by the exercise of public power. These are individual spheres that the State may not violate. 414 To ensure this protection, the Court has considered that it is not sufficient that States refrain from violating rights; rather, it is imperative that they adopt positive measures to be determined based on the particular needs for protection of the subject of law, due either to his personal situation or to the specific situation in which he finds himself. 415 The Court considers that the State obligation has special relevance when violations of the sexual and reproductive rights of woman are involved.416 258. The Convention of Belém do Pará has established parameters to identify when an act constitutes violence and its article 1 indicates that “violence against women shall be understood as any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere.”417 The Court has also indicated that gender-based violence “encompasses acts that inflict 410 Cf. Expert opinion provided by Guillermo Antonio Ortiz Avendaño during the public hearing held in this case. Cf. Expert opinion provided by David Ernesto Morales Cruz on March 4, 2021 (evidence file, folio 3944), and Human Rights Committee. Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of El Salvador, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SLV/CO/7 of May 9, 2018, para. 15. 411 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”)v. Mexico, supra, para. 394, and Case of I.V. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 250, both citing the Convention of Belém do Pará, Preamble and Article 6. 412 413 Convention of Belém do Pará, Article 7(a). 414 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, supra, para. 21, and Case of I.V. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 250. Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 111, and Case of I.V. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 250. 415 416 Case of I.V. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 250. 417 Convention of Belém do Pará, Article 1. 72