Thus, it was more logical for the Judgment to understand and address this case, primarily, as a possible violation of Article 4(1), rather than dealing with it the way it did. By acting as it did, the Judgment not only follows the procedural and argumentative rationales that were legitimately suggested by the Commission and the Representatives in light of their own interests and procedural roles. It also ends up, in practice, minimizing and subordinating the “right to life” to the other previously referred rights. The perspective chosen by the Judgment has, in conclusion, the paramount practical effect of privileging these rights over the “right to life.” B.- Interpretation of Article 4(1). As it was asserted, and in contrast to the path followed by the Judgment, the main issue raised in this case was the determination of whether the State, when issuing the relevant Decision, incurred in international responsibility 15 for violating Article 4(1) of the Convention, which provides: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” The interpretation of a provision of the Convention consists in elucidating the will of the Member States to the Convention, as it was expressed in this treaty. This must be done in accordance with the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (hereinafter “the Vienna Convention”), which contains both the treaty-based and customary rules on this matter. Due to their importance for this case, it is necessary to quote them. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention provides: “General rule of interpretation 1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes: (a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty; (b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty. 3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context: (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions; (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation; (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties. 15 Art. 12 of the Draft on the State’s International Responsibility: “Existence of a breach of an international obligation. There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its origin or character.”