221. The Court concludes that the preparatory work indicates that the proposals to eliminate the phrase “and, in general, from the moment of conception,” did not prosper, and neither did the proposal of the delegations that merely requested the elimination of the words “in general.” iii) Systematic interpretation of the American Convention and the American Declaration 222. The expression “every person” is used in numerous articles of the American Convention 340 and the American Declaration. 341 When analyzing these articles, it is not feasible to maintain that an embryo is the holder of and exercises the rights established in each of these article. Also, taking into account, as indicated previously, that conception can only take place within a woman’s body (supra paras. 186 and 187), it can be concluded with regard to Article 4(1) of the Convention, that the direct subject of protection is fundamentally the pregnant woman, because the protection of the unborn child is implemented essentially through the protection of the woman, as revealed by Article 15)(3)(a) of the Protocol of San Salvador, which obliges the States Parties “to provide special care and assistance to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth,” and article VII of the American Declaration, which establishes the right of all women, during pregnancy, to special protection, care, and aid. 223. Consequently, the Court concludes that the historic and systematic interpretation of precedents that exist in the inter-American system confirms that it is not admissible to grant the status of person to the embryo. C.2.b) Universal human right system i) Universal Declaration of Human Rights 224. Regarding the State’s argument that “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights […] protects the human being from […] the moment of the fusion of the egg and the spermatozoid,” the Court considers that, according to the preparatory work of this instrument, the word “born” was used precisely to exclude the unborn child from the rights recognized in the Declaration. 342 The authors expressly rejected the idea of eliminating that word, so that the resulting text expresses with full intention that the rights set forth in the Declaration are “inherent from the moment of birth.” 343 Therefore, the expression “human being” used in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not been understood to include the unborn child. ii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 225. Regarding the State’s argument that the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights […] recognizes the life of the embryo independently from that of its mother,” the Court observes that, during the second session of the Commission on Human Rights, held from December 2 to 17, 1947, Lebanon proposed the protection of the right to life from 340 Cf. In this regard, Articles 1(1), 3, 4(6), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 7(4), 7(5), 7(6), 8(1), 8(2), 10, 11(1), 11(3), 12(1), 13(1), 14(1), 16, 18, 20(1), 20(2), 21(1), 22(1), 22(2), 22(7), 24, 25(1) and 25(2) of the American Convention. 341 Cf. In this regard Articles II, III, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXVI and XXVII of the American Declaration. 342 E/CN.4/SR/35 (1947). 343 E/CN.4/SR/35 (1947)).