intend to extend to the unborn child the provisions of the Convention, especially the right to life. Indeed, although the preamble of the revised draft of a convention on the rights of the child presented by Poland made no mention of prenatal life, 360 the Vatican requested that the expression “before and after birth” be included in the preamble, 361 which prompted conflicting opinions among the States. As a compromise, the delegations agreed to use an expression taken from the 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child. 362 232. Faced with the difficulty of finding a definition of “child” in article 1 of the draft convention, the reference to birth as the beginning of childhood was eliminated. 363 Subsequently, during the deliberations, the Philippines requested the inclusion of the expression “both before and after birth” in the preamble, 364 which was opposed by several States. 365 As a compromise, it was agreed to include this reference in the preamble, but the preparatory work made it clear that the preamble would not determine the interpretation of Article 1 of the Convention. 366 233. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has not issued any comments from which the existence of a right to prenatal life can be inferred. C.2.c) European human rights system 234. Article 2(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that “[e]veryone’s right to life shall be protected by law.” 367 The authors of the Convention based their wording on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, owing to its “moral authority and technical value.” 368 235. The former European Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the ECHR”) have ruled on the non-absolute scope of the protection of prenatal life in the context of cases of abortion and medical treatments related to in vitro fertilization. 236. In the 1980 Case of Paton v. United Kingdom, concerning the alleged violation of Article 2 of the European Convention to the detriment of the unborn child owing to an abortion carried out at the request of the mother in accordance with domestic law, the European Commission on Human rights held that the wording of the Convention “tends to 360 Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1349 (1979). 361 Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1408, para. 91 (1980). 362 Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1408, paras. 95 and 96 (1980) (“Recognizing that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted in 1959, the child due to the needs of his physical and mental development requires […] legal protection in conditions of freedom, dignity and security”). 363 Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1408, para. 97 (1980). 364 Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1989/48, para. 34 (1989). 365 Cf. UN Doc. E(CN.4/1989/48, para. 36 (1989). 366 UN Doc. E(CN.4/1989/48, paras. 39, 41 and 43 (1989) (“In adopting this preambular paragraph, the Working Group does not intend to prejudice the interpretation of Article 1 or any other provision of the Convention by State Parties”). 367 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 2(1), approved on November 4, 1950, 213 STNU 222, S.T.Eur. No. 5 (in force as of 3 September 1953). (“The Committee considered that it was preferable […], as by reason of the moral authority and technical value of the document in question, to make use, as far as possible, of the definitions set out in the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’”) 368 Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions Report, Section 1, Para. 6, 5 September 1949, in Collected Edition of the Preparatory Work, Vol. 1 (1975), p.194.