based on the fact that the State failed to provide antiretroviral treatment for one victim when she was pregnant, and did not practice a cesarean birth for the other victim when this constituted a preventive measure to avoid vertical transmission of HIV. These omissions by the State constituted a form of gender-based discrimination because they had a differentiated impact on the two women who are living with HIV, and gave rise to a risk of mother-to-child transmission of the virus.73 Added to this, the majority considered that an intersectional discrimination existed because the two victims are women living with HIV, who were pregnant, so that the discrimination was the result of several factors that intersected and conditioned each other.74 32. The jurisprudential precedent for the Court’s analysis can be found in the case of Gonzáles Lluy et al., where the Court determined that Talía Gabriela suffered discrimination on the basis of her condition as a person living with HIV, and being a child, female, and living in poverty.75 These factors made the victim more vulnerable and increased the harm she suffered.76 On that occasion, the Court reflected on how certain groups of women suffer lifelong discrimination based on more than one factor combined with their sex, which increased their risk of becoming a victim of violence and other violations of their human rights.77 It also emphasized that the stigmatization related to HIV does not have the same impact on everyone and the impact on groups that are already marginalized is more severe.78 It has taken this position in the cases of I.V. v. Bolivia,79 Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala80 and V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua.81 33. In the said cases – and in Cuscul Pivaral 82— the Court has maintained that, when there is a confluence of factors of intersectional discrimination, this produces a specific discriminatory experience that is different from other forms of discrimination. This position that the Court has been developing progressively in its case law for the protection of vulnerable groups gives rise to certain challenges that must be addressed in future. The Inter-American Commission and the victims’ representatives must argue more clearly and precisely: (i) that the factors of risk or vulnerability that are alleged are categories protected Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 137. 73 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 138. 74 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 291. 75 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 285. 76 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 288. 77 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 290. 78 79 Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 318. Cf. Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 276. 80 Cf. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 154. In this regard, in this judgment the Inter-American Court chose to make its analysis with “an intersectional approach”; in this case, between gender and the age of the victim (who was a girl child). 81 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 138. 82 13