“States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the necessary conditions to ensure that violations of this inalienable right do not occur”. 39 This has been the steady and consistent case law of the Court in this particular matter. It has been asserted in more than twelve cases. 40 It has even been reaffirmed twice this year. 41 Now, as a consequence of the paramount importance that the Court’s case law attaches to the right to life regulated in Article 4(1) of the Convention, two principles must be applied to this right with a stronger emphasis: on the one hand, the guiding principle of the Law of Treaties, the principle of “good faith,” 42 which implies the understanding that agreements are made for their actual application; on the other hand, the principle pro homine or pro persona, enshrined in the Convention, 43 according to which the rules of human rights must be interpreted in the most favorable terms for the right-holders. In addition, the case law of the Court has used the expressions “children” 44 and “baby” 45 for referring to the unborn. In this regard, and as a comment related specifically to the case at hand, it is noteworthy that the year before the State’s Decision of March 15, 2000, this is, on 1999, the important judgment of the “Street Children” was issued—giving rise to the aforementioned case law. 46 Hence, when the State’s Decision was rendered, basing 39 Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 48. 40 Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 25, 2003, Series C No. 101, para. 152; Case of Juan Humberto-Sánchez, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C No. 99, para. 110; Case of 19 Tradesmen, Judgment of July 5, 2004, Series C No. 109, paras. 152 and 153; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, Judgment of March 29, 2006, Series C No. 146, para. 150; Case Baldeón-García, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147, para. 82; Case of the Massacres of Ituango, Judgment of July 1, 2006, Series C No. 148, para. 128; Case Ximenes-Lopes, Judgment of July 4, 2006, Series C No. 149, para. 124; Case MonteroAranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), Judgment of July 5, 2006, Series C No. 150, para. 63; and Case Albán-Cornejo et al., Judgment of November 22, 2007, Series C No. 171, para. 117. 41 Cases of Castillo-González et al. v. Venezuela and Massacres of El Mozote and Neighboring Locations v. El Salvador, both judgments were issued in October, 2012. 42 Art. 31(1) of the Vienna Convention. 43 Art. 29 of the Convention: “Restrictions Regarding Interpretation. No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: a. permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein; b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party; c. precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government; or d. excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have.” 44 Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, para. 292. 45 Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 8, 2004, para. 67(x). 46 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al. v. Guatemala), Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, para. 144.