English - Alliance Defending Freedom Media

37
that the framers of the Convention decided to maintain this reference to conception “for
reasons of principle.” 153
Another reason why this brief’s interpretation is the most plausible is the distinction
between protection and respect enshrined in the first and second sentences of Article 4(1). The
Convention states that there will be cases in which the right to life might not be protected, but the
respect of the right to life has no exception according to the Pact of San José. This wording is
enigmatic, because both concepts usually go together. It is not easy to understand how a right
can be respected but not protected. However, this enigma is solved by the interpretation of the
“in general” phrase endorsed by this brief. Indeed, this brief’s reading does not disrespect the
unborn child’s right to life, since it does not allow actions performed directly against the
nasciturus. At the same time, this interpretation allows cases in which the protection of the
unborn’s right to life is not enforced, since the nasciturus may perish if his or her mother is in
need of undergoing some necessary life-saving medical treatments.
A further argument why the this brief’s interpretation is the most convincing is that it
accords with the right to equal protection established in Article 24, which provides: “All persons
are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal
protection of the law.” This provision is applicable to the unborn, who is considered a person
before the Convention, as was submitted earlier in this brief. Therefore, a consistent
interpretation of the American treaty would consider that the right to life of the unborn should
stand on equal terms with that of his or her mother, and therefore, would admit as exceptions
only those in which there is no direct attack upon the nasciturus. An interpretation allowing
actions directly intended to end the life of the unborn, even if performed after balancing some
interests of the mother against those of the unborn, would go against Article 24 of the
Convention. 154 Consequently, only an interpretation which does not go directly against the right
to life would be an admissible exception to the protection of the right to life under Article 4(1)
of the Pact of San José.
The interpretation endorsed by this brief is not only more coherent with the text and
history of the Convention, but also requires less subsequent interpretation by the Inter-
American Tribunal than the Commission’s reading. The main issue that the Commission’s
153 GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES, supra note 13 at 97.
154 This is especially so if the unborn is aborted for being disabled, since that action would go against the
understanding that every human being—no matter their physical or mental condition—are of equal human dignity.
Cf. Alison Davis, correspondence, Right to Life of Handicapped, 9 J. MED. ETHICS 181, 181 (1983).