24. In its ruling, the Constitutional Chamber held that in vitro fertilization practices are a threat to the life and dignity of the human person. As the Constitutional Chamber wrote:6 The human embryo is a person from the moment of conception and therefore shall not be treated as a research specimen or be subjected to selection and cryo-preservation procedures. The most fundamental issue for the Court is that it is unlawful under the Constitution for the embryo to be exposed to a disproportionate risk of death. […] The Court’s main objection is that the practice of the technique carries a high embryo loss rate, which cannot be justified by the fact that the ultimate purpose is to produce a human life and give a child to a couple that might otherwise be unable to have one. What matters most is that the embryos that the technique initially endeavors to give life to and then cuts short are human beings and the Constitution does not admit of any distinction between them. The Court also dismisses the argument that under natural circumstances, some embryos fail to implant in the uterus or, even if they do implant, do not develop to birth; it rejects this argument for the simple reason that the in vitro fertilization technique involves a conscious and voluntary manipulation of male and female reproductive cells in order to bring about a new human life, when one knows beforehand that the situation being created is one in which a considerable percentage of the human lives thus brought into being have no chance of surviving. From what the Court has been able to establish, the technique of in vitro fertilization and embryonic transfer, as currently practiced, threatens human life. This Court knows 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 are moot. Nevertheless, given the conditions under which the technique is currently practiced, any elimination or destruction of embryos –whether intentional or as a result of the practitioner’s ineptitude or the inaccuracy of the technique itself- is a violation of the right to life. Thus, the regulation being challenged is unconstitutional as it violates Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The technique itself violates the right to life. Therefore, no legal provision can legitimately authorize its practice so long as the science of the technique remains the same and poses a conscious threat to human life. 25. Based on the information in the case file, the prohibition against the practice of in vitro fertilization is still in force in Costa Rica. B. The situation of the alleged victims in the five petitions 1. Daniel Gerardo Gómez Murillo and Aida Marcela Garita Sánchez (P 1368/04) 26. According to the petitioners, in 2003, after undergoing a number of examinations and tests, the alleged victims in this petition were told that the only way they could have biological children was through in vitro fertilization.7 27. A medical certificate dated December 8, 2004 states that Mrs. Aida Marcela Garita Sánchez “is the carrier of secondary tubal factor infertility; she has no right fallopian tube and her left tube is 6 Judgment No. 2000-02306 of March 15, 2000, issued by the Constitutional Chamber of Costa Rica’s Supreme Court, Case File No. 95-001734-007-CO. 7 Original petition of December 10, 2004. 5