2 extreme gravity. Even when classifying certain behaviors as crimes is justified, this must be done objectively and prudently – which could be called “Beccarian prudence” – fitting the penalties to the gravity of the offence and to the guilt of the perpetrator, without losing sight of the possible differences within the same category – murder and culpable homicide, for example - which call for a different sanction. This matter has been examined in the Inter-American Court’s case law, with regard to Article 4(2) of the American Convention – concerning protection of the right to life – in the judgment delivered in Hilaire, Constantine y Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, on June 21, 2002. I refer to what I said in my separate opinion accompanying that judgment. 5. If, when incriminating unlawful conducts, the penal legislator must distinguish between the different possible hypotheses and deal with each one appropriately, rationally and specifically, with all the more reason must he avoid incriminating conducts that are not unlawful. The fact that a conduct is objectively established in a category of crime included in the relevant legislation does not imply that this automatically satisfies the requirement of the legitimacy of criminal laws. Otherwise, one could justify accepting acts, which are materially admissible and even plausible, established by authoritarian regimes to combat dissent, differences and discrepancies, an occurrence that is well known throughout history and widely condemned. The Inter-American Court has ruled on this issue also when examining the characteristics of legislation that provides for limitations or restrictions to the exercise of rights. The rulings contained in Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986, on “The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention of Human Rights,” should be recalled, in this respect. 6. When a conduct is carried out with the intention of harming a juridical right, the application of a penalty to the author can be justified – with the abovementioned limitations. However, the situation is very different when the intention of the agent is to preserve a high-ranking juridical right whose protection also constitutes an immediate and direct obligation of the person executing the behavior. It must be borne in mind that the safeguard and development of the lives of the individual and the group have led to identifying, encouraging and regulating the performance of certain activities – scientific, technical, artistic, relating to public or social service, etc. – which are considered to be socially useful and even necessary, and which are generally surrounded by appropriate guarantees. The systematic recognition of these activities, at times converted into social functions, constitutes a point of reference to quality their lawfulness and establish the pertinent legal consequences. 7. One of the oldest and most noble activities is that designed to safeguard the life and health of the individual. In this case, what is involved is the protection of the highest-ranking rights, a condition for the enjoyment of all the others. Society as a whole has an interest in it and the State must protect it. This is precisely, the case of the medical profession, whose regulation includes an important ethical component, in addition to elements relating to the techniques to be applied in each case, in keeping with the duty to provide care inferred from the lex artis. The medical professional who takes care of the health of his fellow men and protects them from disease and death fulfills his natural obligation, and the law must protect this carefully. This task and this protection have their own meaning, totally independent of the political, religious or philosophical ideas of the doctor and his patient. If the State imposed on or authorized doctors to misuse their profession, as has occurred under totalitarian regimes, it would be just as censurable as if it prevented them from complying with their ethical and juridical duty, and even imposed penalties for