Third, this opinion dissents with the Judgment’s assertion, given that article 4(1) as written, is sufficient to protect the pregnant woman and, consequently, the unborn. This protection is also found in Article 4(5) of the Convention, which prohibits the application of the death penalty on a pregnant woman. Reference to this protection can also be found in the San Salvador Protocol and the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man, cited by the Judgment. 82 In all these instruments the pregnant woman is seen as subject of human rights rather than an object or instrument thereof. Finally, the author of this dissenting opinion disagrees with the findings of the cited paragraph because it leads to the conclusion that not only the embryos before implantation, but also unborn or conceived children, have no inherent “right to have [their] life respected.” Their right would be dependent, not only on the respect for the pregnant woman’s life, but also on her will to respect the rights of her child. Such an approach is contradictory to the letter and spirit of Article 4(1) of the Convention, which evidently relate to matters such as the juridical regime of abortion. 3.- Method of evolutive interpretation. When interpreting Article 4(1) of the Convention, the Judgment also resorts to the method of evolutive interpretation of treaties. It states that “treaties are living instruments, whose interpretation must keep abreast of the passage of time and current living conditions,” and that this interpretation “is consistent with the general rules of interpretation established in Article 29 of the American Convention, as well as in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.” 83 And, effectively, it is so. Article 29 of the Convention 84 states that no provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as suppressing, excluding or limiting (the latter beyond the boundaries of the Convention), either the enjoyment of rights established in it or in laws of the Member States, or that are inherent to the human being or which derive from the democratic representative system of government, or the effects of the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man, and other international instruments of this nature. In addition, Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention provides for evolutive interpretation of treaties, basing it on any agreement or subsequent practice between Member States regarding the interpretation of a treaty, or where there is a clear agreement of States in this particular regard, and on any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties. Nevertheless, the background material provided by the Judgment does not fulfill the requirements established in article 29 of the Convention. In essence, they only seek to limits what is prescribed in Article 4(1) of the Convention to such an extent that it becomes inapplicable to this case and is stripped of its content and effet utile as to the phrase “in general, from the moment of conception.” Regarding Article 31(3), some of the background material referred to in order to determine the status of the embryo are judgments of other judicial bodies, and consequently are unrelated to agreements and practices of States parties to the Convention and to rules of international applicable. Other background material referring to the laws of States parties to the Convention is insufficient, as it shall be illustrated below. It only demonstrates that assisted reproduction (of which in vitro 82 Ibid. 83 Para. 245. 84 Previously quoted.