referring to the obligation of nondiscrimination, the right to health, and the right to constitute and protect a family, in its analysis of the merits of this case, in accordance with Articles 26 and 29 of the American Convention. 53. With respect to petitioners’ allegations regarding violations of Articles 1 and 7.h of the Convention of Belém do Pará, the Commission observes that according to Article 12 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, one can present petitions to the IACHR alleging violations of Article 7 of that Convention by a state party, and the Commission shall consider them, in keeping with the procedural rules and requirements for the presentation and consideration of petitions stipulated in the American Convention on Human Rights and in the Statute and Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.7 54. This being the case, if the facts of the complaint should be proven, they would constitute violations of the human rights protected in the American Convention. The Commission therefore considers that it has jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine the complaint. 3. Jurisdiction ratione temporis 55. The Commission also has jurisdiction ratione temporis, because the facts alleged in the petition took place when the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in the Convention was already in force for the Costa Rican State.8 4. Jurisdiction ratione loci 56. Finally, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to consider the petition, because it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that took place within the territory of a State party to that Convention. B. Other requirements of admissibility 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 57. The petitioner declares that on March 15, 2000, the Costa Rican Constitutional Chamber, in a ruling of unconstitutionality, issued a judgment annulling Executive Decree Number 24029-S of February 2, 1995, thereby prohibiting the practice of in vitro fertilization in Costa Rica. That judgment was notified to the parties in October 2000. 58. The petitioner argues that there is no recourse against that decision, pursuant to Article 11 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Act, which declares that there is no recourse against judgments, rulings or orders of the constitutional court. For the reasons cited above, the petitioner argues that domestic remedies were exhausted, in accordance with Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. 59. The State alleges that the presumed victims identified did not have their complaints examined by domestic courts, and on these grounds it argues failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The State points out that, while constitutional jurisprudence is binding, it does not tie the hands of the Chamber itself, which could eventually reverse its decision if there were sufficient grounds for doing so. 60. The Commission considers that there has been a definitive and binding decision by the highest court of the land, which declared unconstitutional the practice of in vitro fertilization as regulated in Presidential Decree 24029-S. The State does not dispute this fact. The Commission therefore sees no need to conduct mechanical proceedings on those facts in order to fulfill a mere formality. 61. The Commission has repeatedly declared that it is not enough for the State simply to allege failure to exhaust domestic remedies in order for that exception to prevail. On this point, the Inter-American Court has ruled that a State invoking this exception must also 7 IACHR, Report Nº 73/01, case 12,350, MZ, October 10, 2001, Bolivia, Annual Report 2001, paragraph 24. 8 Costa Rica ratified the American Convention on April 8, 1970, and on June 2, 1980 it deposited with the OAS General Secretariat the instrument recognizing the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, pursuant to Articles 45 and 62 of the Convention. 7