alleged effect of this in cases of obstetric emergencies and infanticide”31 and that “[e]ven though the criminal laws on abortion were not applied in this case, … this information relates to the alleged criminalization of women who have suffered obstetric emergencies,” so that “the Court will examine that relationship … and take it into account when analyzing this specific case.”32 11. In this way, the judgment introduces the issue of abortion repeatedly and without any need in this case which relates to aggravated homicide. This is why I dissent. 12. It should also be added that the judgment failed to take into account the “pivotal” principle of international human rights law concerning the collaborative or complementary nature of the inter-American protection in relation to the protection provided by the domestic law of the States of the region.33 This means that the corresponding State incurs international responsibility if the most recent act undertaken in relation to the respective case violates a valid international obligation, unless it involves a continuing act 34 or a composite act35 or an omission.36 To the contrary, acts prior to the instantaneous act 37 are indeed different, and should not be considered because, to the contrary, the State would have been unable to amend its actions and, in this eventuality, the international protection would be substituting the domestic protection, and even transforming it into a fourth instance. This is precisely what has happened in the judgment, by ruling on the initial actions of the investigation conducted that were based on investigating a possible abortion.38 To the contrary, in the instant case, the issue was to determine the possible illegality of the aggravated homicide in question and never that of an abortion. 13. It is also necessary to indicate that the Court’s jurisdiction is exercised within the framework of international law,39 based on the objective nature of the State’s international responsibility for an internationally wrongful act; that is, the State incurs in this if an action is attributable to it under international law, and if this constitutes a breach The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights refers to this fact as “the criminalization of abortion” (para. 1 of the judgment). The judgment reiterates this expression in para. 41. 31 32 Para. 41. Para. 3 of the Preamble to the Convention: “Recognizing that the essential rights of man are not derived from one's being a national of a certain state, but are based upon attributes of the human personality, and that they therefore justify international protection in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” 33 Art. 14(2), Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (AG/56/83): “The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation.” 34 Art. 15(1), Idem: “The breach of an international obligation by a State through a series of actions or omissions defined in aggregate as wrongful occurs when the action or omission occurs which, taken with the other actions or omissions, is sufficient to constitute the wrongful act.” 35 Art.14(3), Idem: The breach of an international obligation requiring a State to prevent a given event occurs when the event occurs and extends over the entire period during which the event continues and remains not in conformity with that obligation.” 36 Art.14(1), Idem: “The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State not having a continuing character occurs at the moment when the act is performed, even if its effects continue.” 37 38 Supra, footnote 32. Art. 62(3): “The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” 39 5