of the Convention—, refer exclusively to the “person” or “human being”. They refer to his or her rights, not to other interests or to other beings. 2.- Legal protection of the right. Article 4(1) provides in its second sentence and following a period, that “this right [that is, that of “every person… to have his life respected”] shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.” This sentence demands the interpretation of three expressions: first, what is understood as “law;” secondly, the meaning of “and, in general;” and thirdly, the term “conception.” a.-“Law”. When prescribing that the aforementioned right “shall be protected by law”, the Convention imposed on the State the obligation to enact juridical norms to that effect. This obligation is also established, in more general and broad terms, in the previously quoted Article 2 of the Convention. 17 It must be understood that the Convention uses the word “law” in its broad sense. That is, as a juridical norm, be it constitutional, legal or regulatory, enacted by the competent State body for regulating, in a general and mandatory fashion, the conduct or activity of all of a country’s population. 18 It must be also borne in mind that Article 4(1)’s stipulation that the right of “every person […] to have his life respected” must be “protected by law”, does not mean that the Court cannot assess this law’s compliance with International Law, whether this law is internationally licit, especially in light of the Convention. As a commentary related solely to the case at hand, it must be highlighted that Article 21 of the 1949 Political Constitution of the State already provided that “human life is inviolable”. It must also be considered that the Decision that gave rise to this case concluded explicitly that “the contested regulation (Executive Decree No. 24029-S of February 3, 1995, issued by the Health Ministry) is unconstitutional due to its violation of Article 21 of the Political Constitution and of Article 4 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights”. 19 Hence, it could be understood that, by doing this, the State was fulfilling Article 4(1)’s instruction of protecting by law the right of “every person […] to have his life respected.” b.- “And, in general”. 17 Art. 2 of the Convention: “Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 18 The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6. 19 Para. 76.