due diligence that incorporates the gender perspective starting with the initial procedures and must eliminate any gender stereotyping or bias in order to truly guarantee the presumption of innocence of the woman who is being investigated. In such cases, the professional defense to which the Court has referred extensively in its case law is a right that the State must ensure from the very outset, ensuring that this defense incorporates a gender perspective and is provided with enhanced due diligence.31 29. I also take advantage of this opinion to make a brief mention of the importance of the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals, the main purpose of which is to “leave no one behind.” The 2030 Agenda responds to a rights approach in development policies and strategies, and its content recognizes that development is a human right that can be demanded of governments and that development policies must be based on human rights. Human rights are an essential element in the design of development policies and strategies. 30. Point 35 of the Declaration that precedes the goals affirms that: “Sustainable development cannot be realized without peace and security; and peace and security will be at risk without sustainable development. The new Agenda recognizes the need to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies that provide equal access to justice and that are based on respect for human rights (including the right to development), on effective rule of law and good governance at all levels and on transparent, effective and accountable institutions […]” (bold added). 31. This relationship between human rights and sustainable development is established in the 2030 SDGs as the road map resulting from international consensus to enable people to overcome situations in which their rights are violated, such as those proved in this judgment. It is Goal 16 that reflects this relationship, promoting the rule of law at the national and international levels (16.3); the development of effective, accountable and transparent institutions (16.6); public access to information and protection of fundamental freedoms (16.10), and the promotion and enforcement of non-discriminatory law and policies for sustainable development (16.b). 32. The situation in the instant case is related, in particular, to Goals: 1. “End poverty in all its forms everywhere”; 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”; 8. “... sustainable economic growth ... and decent work for all”; 10. “Reduce inequality,” and 16. Promote peace, justice and inclusive institutions. 33. The violations of the rights proved in this case require the State to act with the utmost diligence in the execution of its obligations to ensure and to respect the human rights that were violated (Art. 1(1) of the Convention) and to adopt the measures established in this judgment, requesting the appropriate international cooperation in order to comply with them (Art. 2 of the Convention). III. CONCLUSION 34. Manuela, a poor young woman who lived with her parents and two sons, became pregnant and suffered preeclampsia, the condition in which her delivery took place. Owing to her health situation, her father took her to a hospital in which priority was given to reporting an offense, rather than the immediate need of treating her health situation. To the extent that the disease that finally resulted in her death was not detected. 35. She was handcuffed to a bed, and subjected to a criminal trial that culminated in a sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment, without observing the guarantee of the presumption of her innocence and without respecting her right to a proper defense and an impartial judge, because the judgment convicting her is full of detrimental gender stereotypes that 31 Amicus Curiae, Fundación para el Debido Proceso, p. 15. 7