13. The petitioner observed that the prohibition of in vitro fertilization in Costa Rica violates the right to raise a family, the alleged victims’ own family. This right, he argued, is protected under Article 17(2) of the American Convention. He reasoned further that the prohibition also violated the right to reproduce, which is the necessary precondition to raise a family. He also maintained that the prohibition of in vitro fertilization violates the general obligation of non-discrimination established in Article 1 of the American Convention. He further alleged a violation of Article 24 of the American Convention in that the prohibition of in vitro fertilization discriminates against persons with reproductive disabilities and those who do not have the economic means to travel to seek the treatment abroad. 14. The petitioner asserted that the right to life is not an absolute; instead it is subject to exceptions and conditions. He observed that the American Convention set forth the principle of relativity in its Article 4, which states that this right shall be protected, in general, from the moment of conception. The petitioner also questioned whether the embryo has legal personality and notes that every person who comes into this world has rights if he or she meets two conditions: that of being born and being born alive. B. The State 15. In the admissibility phase, the State maintained that it has taken care to create the conditions necessary to observe the right to protection of the family. It argued, however, that under Article 17(2) of the Convention, men and women have the right to marry and to raise a family if they meet the conditions required by domestic law. The State reasoned that “while parents must have the right to have children, to do so by depriving other human beings of their lives can hardly be lawful.” 16. It argued that however the expression “in general” in Article 4(1) of the American Convention is interpreted, what matters is that the article establishes the right to protection of life from the moment of conception and that the State has opted for that degree of protection. 17. It maintained that in its Judgment No. 2000-02306 of March 15, 2000, the Constitutional Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court did not declare in vitro fertilization as a method of assisted reproduction to be unconstitutional per se; its ruling was that “the procedure as practiced in the year 2000 […] undoubtedly exposed embryos to a disproportionately high rate of death.” According to the State, under the conditions in which the technique was practiced at the time of the Constitutional Chamber’s ruling, which allowed insemination of up to six ova, it deemed that the technique violated the right to life. Hence the technique was deemed to be in violation of constitutional law and Article 4 of the American Convention. According to the State, the Constitutional Chamber held that “science and biotechnology are advancing at such a dizzying pace that the technique may one day be improved to the point that the objections raised here may be moot.” 18. Thus, in the admissibility phase the State was emphatic in arguing that the Constitutional Chamber’s ruling and its effects are not in violation of the American Convention. 19. After the parties were notified of the admissibility report, the State presented a single brief in 2011 wherein it requested an extension in order to be able to present its observations on the merits. The State supported its request by pointing out that it was in the process of complying with the recommendations made in the Commission’s merits report in case 12,361, Artavia Murillo et al. The Commission granted the extension. However the case was submitted to the Inter-American Court and by now more than two years have passed since the Court’s judgment was delivered and yet the State has provided no further information in connection with the present case. 3