171. The Court has indicated that the purpose of this case focuses on establishing whether the Constitutional Chamber’s judgment resulted in a disproportionate restriction of the rights of the presumed victims (supra para. 135). The decision of the Constitutional Chamber considered that the American Convention required the prohibition of IVF, as regulated in the Executive Decree (supra para. 76). To this end, the Constitutional Chamber interpreted Article 4(1) of the Convention based on the understanding that the Convention requires the absolute protection of the embryo (supra para. 75). For its part, the State has offered complementary arguments to defend the interpretation made by the Chamber. In this regard, the Court has analyzed this case with great thoroughness, taking into account that the highest court of Costa Rica has intervened and that, in its judgment, it made an interpretation of Article 4 of the American Convention. However, this Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Convention, so that it finds it relevant to make the relevant clarification with regard to the scope of this right. Consequently, the Court will analyze whether the interpretation of the Convention that substantiated the interferences that occurred (supra para. 75) is admissible in light of this treaty, bearing in mind the pertinent sources of international law. 172. To date, the Court’s case law has not ruled on the disputes that have arisen in this case with regard to the right to life. In cases of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and deaths that can be attributed to the failure of the States to adopt measures, the Court has indicated that the right to life is a fundamental human right, the full enjoyment of which is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights. 261 Based on this fundamental role assigned to it in the Convention, States have an obligation to create the conditions to ensure that no violations of that right occur. The Court has also indicated that the right to life presupposes that no one may be arbitrarily deprived of his life (negative obligation) and that the States must adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation) of all those who are subject to their jurisdiction. 262 This includes adopting the necessary measures to create an adequate regulatory framework that deters any threat to the right to life and safeguards the right to have access to conditions that ensure a decent life. 173. In the instant case, the Constitutional Chamber considered that these and other aspects of the right to life require the absolute protection of the embryo within the framework of the inviolability of life from conception (supra para. 76). To determine whether an obligation of absolute protection exists in those terms, the Court proceeds to analyze the scope of Articles 1(2) and 4(1) of the American Convention in relation to the terms “person,” “human being,” “conception” and “in general.” The Court reiterates its case law according to which a provision of the Convention must be interpreted in good faith, according to the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty and their context, and bearing in mind the object and purpose of the American Convention, which is the effective protection of the human person, 263 as well as by an evolutive interpretation of 261 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 186. 262 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, de 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 120, and Case of Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C. No. 252, para. 145. 263 Mutatis mutandi, Case of González et al. (“Cotton field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 33.