professional secrecy and the reporting duty. In cases of obstetric emergencies in which the life of the woman is in danger, the duty to respect the professional secret should be given priority. Therefore, the harm caused by the report made by the treating physician in this case was disproportionate compared to the advantages it obtained. Consequently, the report made by the treating physician constituted a violation of Manuela’s rights to privacy and health, established in Articles 11 and 26 of the American Convention. B.3.b The physician’s statement and the disclosure of the medical record 225. On February 28, 2008, the police questioned the treating physician with regard to her report. The physician revealed information about Manuela’s body, which she had examined while providing medical treatment.374 In addition, on February 29, 2008, the San Francisco Gotera Hospital shared a transcript of Manuela’s medical record with the prosecution service, following a request for collaboration by that service. 375 226. It should be pointed out that the treating physician’s statement and the medical record were probative elements collected during the initial investigation conducted by the police. According to article 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the physician had the obligation to refrain from making a statement concerning the information she had obtained from providing medical care to Manuela and to refrain from sharing confidential information. The Court also considers that the personal data contained in the medical record related to sensitive information that could only be disclosed with the authorization of the competent authority. 376 227. As a general rule, medical information should be kept confidential, except when: (i) the patient gives his/her consent to its disclosure, or (ii) domestic law authorizes access by specific authorities. In addition, the law should establish the specific situations in which the medical record may be disclosed, clear safeguards for the protection of this information, and the way in which the information may be disclosed, requiring that this can only be done following a reasoned order issued by a competent authority and, only the necessary information for the particular case. 228. In the instant case, the statement made by the treating physician was contrary to domestic law which established the duty of professional secrecy. Furthermore, the laws on medical confidentially analyzed above did not establish clear criteria on the circumstances in which the medical authorities could share someone’s medical record. Therefore, the Court considers that, in cases such as this one, related to obstetric emergencies, the disclosure of medical information may restrict access to adequate medical attention for women who need medical assistance, but avoid going to a hospital for fear of being criminalized, which jeopardizes their right to health, personal integrity and life. Consequently, the statement made by the physician and the disclosure of the medical record constitute a violation of Manuela’s rights to privacy and to health established in Articles 11 and 26 of the American Convention. B.3.d Conclusion 229. Based on the above, failure to comply with the obligation to respect professional secrecy and the disclosure of Manuela’s medical information constituted a violation of her rights to 374 Record of interview of the treating physician (evidence file, folios 24 and 25). Request for collaboration of February 29, 2008 (evidence file, folio 55), and Communication issued by the director of the San Francisco Gotera National Hospital of February 29, 2008 (evidence file, folio 57). 375 In this regard, the Inter-American Juridical Committee has indicated that “[p]ersonal data should not be disclosed, made available to third parties, or used for purposes other than those for which it was collected except with the consent of the concerned individual or under the authority of law.” Inter-American Juridical Committee. Updated Principles on Privacy and Protection of Personal Data, with annotations, adopted by Resolution CJI/RES. 266 (XCVIII/21) 98th regular session OEA/Ser. Q, of April 5 to 9, 2021, Fifth principle. 376 65