1. The contracting States undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms […]. 2. “Person” for the intents and purposes of this Convention, means every human being; 218. In addition, Article 3(1) indicated: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 219. The Court observes that during the preparatory work the words “person” and “human being” were used without the intention of making a distinction between the two terms. Article 1(2) of the Convention specifies that the two terms must be understood as synonyms. 333 220. The Court also observes that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in the case of Baby Boy v. United States of America, 334 rejected the petitioners’ request to declare that two judgments of the United States Supreme Court of Justice 335 that legalized unrestricted abortion before fetal viability violated the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Regarding the interpretation of Article I of the American Declaration, the Commission rejected the argument of the petitioners according to which “Article I of the Declaration has incorporated the notion that the right to life exists from the moment of conception,” 336 considering that, when approving the American Declaration, the Ninth American International Conference had “discussed this matter and decided not to adopt wording that would have clearly established this principle.” 337 Regarding the interpretation of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission indicated that the protection of the right to life was not absolute. 338 It considered that “[t]he addition of the phrase ‘in general, from the moment of conception’ did not mean that those who drafted the Convention had the intention of modifying the concept of the right to life established in Bogota, when the American Declaration was approved. The legal implications of the phrase ‘in general, from the moment of conception’ are substantially different from those of the shorter phrase ‘from the moment of conception,’ which appeared repeatedly in the petitioners’ document.” 339 333 Article 1(2) has been analyzed by the Court in cases in which the violation of rights has been alleged to the detriment of legal persons, and the Court has rejected this, because they have not been recognized as holders of the rights established in the American Convention. Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary objections.. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 29, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 398. However, in these cases, the Court did not develop significant arguments on the meaning of Article 1(2) in the context of the disputes in this case. 334 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Baby Boy v. United States, Case of 2141, Report No. 23/81, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, doc. 9 rev. 1 (1981). 335 Cf. United States Supreme Court of Justice, Cases of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179. 336 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Baby Boy v. United States, Case of 2141, Report No. 23/81, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, doc. 9 rev. 1 (1981), para. 19(h). 337 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Baby Boy v. United States, Case of 2141, Report No. 23/81, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, doc. 9 rev. 1 (1981), para. 19(h). 338 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Baby Boy v. United States, Case of 2141, Report No. 23/81, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, doc. 9 rev. 1 (1981), para. 25. 339 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Baby Boy v. United States, Case of 2141, Report No. 23/81, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, doc. 9 rev. 1 (1981), para. 30.