the moment of conception. 344 In view of the resistance to the wording “from the moment of conception” in light of the admissibility of abortion in many States, Lebanon suggested the wording “at any stage of human development.” 345 This wording, which was initially accepted, 346 was subsequently eliminated. 347 A proposal made by the United Kingdom to regulate the issue of abortion in a separate article was initially considered, 348 but then was also discarded. 349 During the sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights from March 27 to May 19, 1950, a new attempt made by Lebanon to protect human life from the moment of conception failed. 350 In the deliberations of the Third Committee of the General Assembly from November 13 to 26, 1957, a group of five States (Belgium, Brazil, El Salvador, Mexico and Morocco) proposed an amendment to article 6(1) in the following terms: “from the moment of conception, this right [to life] shall be protected by law.” 351 However, this proposal was rejected by 31 votes against, 20 votes in favor and 17 abstentions. 352 Thus, the preparatory work for article 6(1) of the ICCPR reveals that the States did not seek to treat the unborn child as a person and grant it the same level of protection as those who are born. 226. The Human Rights Committee did not comment on the right to life of the unborn child in either General Comment No. 6 (Right to Life) 353 or General Comment No. 17 (Rights of the Child). 354 On the contrary, in its concluding observations on the reports of the States, the Human Rights Committee has indicated that the right to life of the mother is violated when laws that restrict access to abortion force women to resort to unsafe abortion, exposing them to death. 355 These decisions allow the Court to state that an absolute 344 Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/386 and 398. 345 Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/AC.3/SR.2, para. 2 f (1947). 346 Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/AC.3/SR.2, para. 2 f (1947). 347 Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/AC.3/SR.9, para. 3 (1947). 348 Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/AC.3/SR.9, para. 3 (1947). 349 Cf. UN. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.35, para. 12 (1947). 350 Cf. UN. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.149, para. 16 (1950). 351 Cf. UN Doc. A/C.3/L.654. 352 Cf. UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.820, para. 9 (1957). 353 Cf. Committee on Human Rights, General Comment No. 6, Right to Life (Article 6), U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 at 143 (1982). 354 355 Cf. Committee on Human Rights, General Comment No. 17, Rights of the Child (Article 24). For example, the Human Rights Committee has issued the following Concluding Observations in this regard: Argentina, para. 14, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/70/ARG (2000); Bolivia, para. 22, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.74 (1997); Costa Rica, para. 11, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Ad.107 (1999); Chile, para. 15, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.104 (1999); El Salvador, para. 14, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/SLV (2003); Ecuador, para. 11, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.92 (1998); The Gambia, para. 17, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/75/GMB (2004); Guatemala, para. 19, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM (2001); Honduras, para. 8, UN Doc. CCPR/C/HND/CO/1 (2006); Kenya, para. 14, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/83/KEN (2005); Kuwait, para. 9, CCPR/CO/69/KWT (2000); Lesotho, para. 11, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.106 (1999); Mauritius, para. 9, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/83/MUS (2005); Morocco, para. 29, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/82/MAR (2004); Paraguay, para. 10, UN Doc. CCPR/C/PRY/CO/2 (2006); Peru, para. 15, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Ad.72 (1996); Peru, para. 20, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/70/PER (2000); Poland, para. 8, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/82/POL (2004); Republic of Tanzania, para. 15, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Ad.97 (1998); Trinidad and Tobago, para. 18, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/70/TTO (2000); Venezuela, para. 19, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/71/VEN (2001), and Vietnam, para. 15, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/75/VNM (2002). Also, in the Case of K.L. v. Peru, the Human Rights Committee determined that, by having refused a therapeutic abortion to a woman, even though the continuation of the pregnancy placed her life and mental health in grave danger, the State had violated her right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Case of K.L. v. Peru, HRC, Communication No. 1153/2003, Doc. UN CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005). This interpretation was ratified in the Case of L.M.R. v. Argentina, where the Committee observed that refusing legal abortion in a case of rape caused the victim physical and mental suffering, so that her right to privacy and not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was