CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI, ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF MARCH 31, 2014, REQUEST FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES CASE OF ARTAVIA MURILLO ET AL. (“IN VITRO FERTILIZATION”) v. COSTA RICA This concurring opinion to the Order indicated in the abovementioned title is issued based on the fact that although the decision to dismiss the requested provisional measures is one I share, it is not for the reasons noted therein, which is “that the matter as filed before the Court is not considerable as a provisional measure pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, but rather must be assessed within the framework of the monitoring of compliance stage of the Judgment rendered on November 28, 2012 in this case,” but rather because, it is my opinion that in this matter and given that provided in the American Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter the Convention, has precluded the power of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, hereinafter the Court, to render provisional measures, that is, it was not authorized to render such an order. The reasons for the stance taken in this opinion has been presented in other opinions issued by those mentioned in the footnotes1 and they are, among others, the following. For one thing, in that provisional measures were created as part of the process by which the Court hears a case, that is, when the Court hears the case in exercise of its contentious jurisdiction.2 Article 63(2) of the Convention3, the norm which established provisional measures, distinguishes between those measures which the Court can decree “in the matters it has under consideration” and in those in which it can decree “in matters which have not been submitted to the Court.” In fact, in the Rules of Procedure of the Court, adopted by the Court, that distinction is not only made, rather it provides that, regarding the matters under its consideration, provisional measures 1 Particularly in the Dissenting opinions of July 15, 2011, regarding the Orders of the Court in “Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Colombia, Case of Gutiérrez Soler V. Colombia,” of June 30, 2011; “Provisional Measures regarding the United States of Mexico, Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. V. Mexico,” of July 1, 2011, and “Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Honduras, Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras,” of July 5, 2011, and the brief en the Complaint brief, related to the Orders, filed before the Court on August 17, 2011. 2 Art.62(3) of the Convention. “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.” 3 “In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.”