protection of the prenatal life or the life of the embryo cannot be inferred from the ICCPR. iii) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 227. The reports of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (hereinafter also “CEDAW”) makes it clear that the fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination require that precedence be given to protecting the rights of pregnant women over the interest of protecting the life in formation. In the case of L.C. v. Peru, the Committee found the State responsible for violating the rights of a girl who was denied a crucial surgical operation, based on the excuse that she was pregnant, giving priority to the fetus over the mother’s health. In view of the fact that the continuation of the pregnancy represented a grave danger for the young woman’s physical and mental health, the Committee concluded that denying her a therapeutic abortion and postponing the operation constituted gender-based discrimination and a violation of her right to health and nondiscrimination. 356 228. The Committee also expressed its concern over the potential of anti-abortion laws to jeopardize women’s rights to life and health. 357 The Committee has established that the total ban on abortion, as well as its criminalization under certain circumstances, violates the provisions of the Convention. 358 iv) Convention on the Rights of the Child 229. The State argued that the embryo should be considered a “child” and, consequently, that there is a special obligation to protect it. The Court will proceed to analyze whether this interpretation has a basis in the international corpus juris on the protection of children. 230. According to Article 6(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, “States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.” The term “child” is defined in article 1 of the Convention as “every human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the laws applicable to the child majority is attained earlier.” The Preamble to the Convention states that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.’” 359 231. Articles 1 and 6(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child do not refer explicitly to protection of the unborn child. The Preamble refers to the need to provide “special safeguards and care […] before […] birth.” However, the preparatory work shows that this phrase was not intended to extend the provisions of the Convention, particularly the right to life, to the unborn child. In fact, the preparatory work indicates that this phrase did not violated. Case of L.M.R. v. Argentina, HRC, Communication No. 1608/2007, Doc. UN CCPR/C/101/D/1608/2007 (2011). 356 (2011). Case of L.C. v. Peru, CEDAW, Communication No. 22/2009, para. 8.15, UN Doc. CEDAW/c/50/D/22/2009 357 Cf. CEDAW, Concluding comments on: Belize, para. 56, Doc. UN A/54/38/Rev. 1, GAOR, fifty-fourth session, Supl. No. 38 (1999); Chile, para. 228, Doc. UN A/54/38/Rev. 1, GAOR, fifty-fourth session, Supl. No. 38 (1999); Colombia, para. 393, Doc. UN A/54/38/Rev. 1, GAOR, fifty-fourth session, Supl. No. 38 (1999); Dominican Republic, para. 337, Doc. UN A/53/38/Rev.1, GAOR, fifty-third session, Supl. No. 38 (1998); Paraguay, para. 131, Doc. UN A/51/38, GAOR fifty-first session, Supl. No. 38 (1996). 358 Cf. CEDAW, Concluding comments: Chile, para. 228, Doc. UN CEDAW/A/54/38/Rev.1 (1999), and CEDAW Committee, Concluding comments: Nepal, para. 147, Doc. UN CEDAW/A/54/38/Rev.1 (1999). 359 Cf. Convention on the Rights of the Child, para. 9 of the Preamble.