Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person. 302 199. The Court observes that, in their domestic law, several countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, established exceptions to the criminalization of abortion in cases of danger to a woman’s life, grave danger to a woman’s health, eugenic abortions, or rape. 303 200. Taking into account this background information leading up to the American Declaration, the Court considers that the preparatory work does not provide a clear answer to the matter in dispute. ii) Preparatory work of the American Convention on Human Rights 201. During the Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the OAS, held in 1959, the decision was taken to facilitate the preparation of a human rights convention, and the Inter-American Council of Jurists was entrusted with the preparation of the respective draft document. 304 The Inter-American Council of Jurists drew up this draft 305 to be considered at the Ninth International American Conference to be held in 1960. The Inter-American Council took into account the experiences of the European human rights system with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the United Nations universal human rights system. Regarding the right to life, the following wording was included in Article 2 of the draft convention: Every person has the right to have his life respected. The right to life is inherent in the human being. This right shall be protected by law from the moment of conception. No one may be deprived of life arbitrarily. 306 202. This wording, without the phrase “in general” which was incorporated later, was proposed in the three drafts on which the American Convention was based. 307 203. Subsequently, the 1965 Second Special Conference of Inter-American States commissioned the OAS Council to update and complete the “draft human rights convention” prepared by the Inter-American Council of Jurists in 1959, taking into account the draft conventions presented by the Governments of Chile and Uruguay and obtaining the opinion of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 308 302 Cf. IX Conferencia Internacional Americana - Actas y Documentos, Vol. V, , Vol. I, pp. 231, 234 and 236. 303 Cf. Luis Jiménez de Asua, Códigos Penales Iberoamericanos, Vols. I, II, cited in Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case of Baby Boy v. United States of America. Decision No. 23/81, Case of 2141 (1981), para. 19(f). 304 Cf. Anuario Interamericano de Derechos Humanos 1968, OAS, Washington D.C., 1973, p. 97. 305 Approved on September 8, 1959, by Resolution No. XX of the Inter-American Council of Jurists. 306 Cf. Draft human rights convention, approved by the fourth meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists, Final Proceedings, Santiago de Chile, September 1959 Doc. CIJ-43, in: Anuario Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, 1968, OAS, Washington D.C., 1973, pp. 236. 307 Cf. the Draft human rights convention, approved by the fourth meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists, Santiago, Chile, September 1959; the draft human rights convention presented by the Government of Chile at the Second Inter-American Special Conference, Río de Janeiro, 1965, doc. 35, and the draft human rights convention presented by the Government of Uruguay at the Second Inter-American Special Conference, Río de Janeiro, 1965, doc. 49, Cf. Anuario Interamericano de Derechos Humanos 1968, OAS, Washington D.C., 1973, pp. 236, 280 & 298. 308 It also commissioned the OAS Council to ensure that the revised draft was submitted to the Governments so that they could make any observations and amendments they considered pertinent and to convene an InterAmerican Specialized Conference to consider the draft and the observations, and to approve the Convention. The OAS Council asked the Inter-American Commission for its opinion and the latter issued an opinion on the matter