underlying prejudices and inequalities.”160 This guideline has been interpreted to mean that States should support the development of adequate, accessible and effective HIV-related prevention and care services by and for vulnerable communities, and that they should ensure that all women of child-bearing age have access to accurate and comprehensive information and counselling on the prevention of HIV transmission and the risk of vertical transmission of HIV, as well as to resources available to minimize that risk.161 135. In this regard, the Court notes that 25 of the presumed victims in this case are women, of whom five were pregnant when they were diagnosed with HIV or became pregnant after their diagnosis.162 136. In this regard, the Court notes the following: (i) Sandra Lisbeth Zepeda Herrera was diagnosed with HIV when she was seven months pregnant, but did not receive adequate treatment to avoid the vertical transmission of the virus that occurred;163 (ii) Pascuala de Jesús Mérida Rodríguez was five months pregnant when she was diagnosed with HIV, and although she received antiretroviral treatment from MSF during her pregnancy, the medical staff of the hospital where she gave birth to her son refused to perform the planned cesarean section, which meant that she risked transmitting the virus to her son, 164 and (iii) regarding the care received by Saira Elisa Barrios, Corina Dianeth Robledo Alvarado and Dora Marina Martínez Sofoifa, the Court has insufficient information to determine any State acts or omissions related to their care as pregnant women living with HIV. 137. Consequently, the Court considers that the failure to provide antiretroviral treatment to Mrs. Zepeda Herrera when she was pregnant, and to perform a cesarean section in the case of Mrs. Jesús Mérida when this had been programmed as a preventive measure constituted a form of gender-based discrimination, because the State failed to provide adequate medical care to pregnant women living with HIV, and this had a differentiated impact and resulted in a risk of vertical transmission of HIV to their offspring. The Court notes that, according to information submitted by expert witness Oscar Cabrera, preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV is a priority for eliminating HIV in children, because more than 90% of children with HIV are infected through their mothers during pregnancy, labor, birth, and breast-feeding and, without treatment, more than half the children with HIV will die within their first two years of life.165 138. Furthermore, the Court considers that the conditions of being women living with HIV and being pregnant coalesced in an intersectional manner for Mrs. Zepeda Herrera and Mrs. Jesús Mérida who, owing to their situation, formed part of a vulnerable group so that the discrimination against them was the result of several factors that intersected and Cf. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights. Consolidated version, 2006, eighth guideline. 160 Cf. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights. Consolidated version, 2006, eighth guideline, pp. 52 to 54. 161 The following persons fall within this category: Sandra Lisbeth Zepeda Herrera, Pascuala de Jesús Mérida, Saira Elisa Barrios, Corina Dianeth Robledo and Dora Marina Martínez. 162 163 11544). Cf. Affidavit prepared by Sandra Lisbeth Zepeda Herrera on December 15, 2016 (evidence file, folio Cf. Affidavit prepared by Pascuala De Jesús Mérida Rodríguez de Maldonado on January 11, 2017 (evidence file, folio 11763). 164 165 Cf. Expert opinion provided by Oscar Cabrera on March 6, 2018 (merits file, folio 1707). 48