joined, the Commission issued admissibility report 156/10 of November 1, 2010, wherein it declared the petitions admissible for alleged violations of the rights recognized in articles 5(1), 11(2), 17(2) and 24 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 6. The Commission assigned the petitions case number 12,798 and, on November 12, 2010, notified the parties of the admissibility report. In accordance with Article 36(2) of the Rules of Procedure then in force, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement and invited the petitioner to submit additional observations within three months’ time. Neither of the two parties raised the possibility of initiating a friendly-settlement process. 7. By a communication dated November 25, 2010, received on December 2, 2010, the petitioner submitted his additional observations on the merits, which were forwarded to the Costa Rican State on December 6, 2010, with the request that within three months, it submit any additional observations it might have concerning the merits. The petitioner sent additional communications on December 16, 20 and 22, 2010. The State made reference to the case in a communication dated March 7, 2011, and requested an extension in order to be able to prepare more detailed observations on the merits. The extension was granted on March 16, 2011. However, as of the date of approval of the present report, the Costa Rican State has not filed any additional observations on the merits. III. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioner 8. The petitioner alleged human rights violations committed against the following persons: Aída Marcela Garita Sánchez, a teacher, Daniel Gerardo Gómez Murillo, a chemist, Luis Miguel Cruz Comparaz, a tourism guide, Raquel Sanvicente Rojas, a housewife, Randall Alberto Torres, a graduate in English, Geanina Isela Marín Rankin, a graduate in electrical engineering, Carlos Edgardo López Vega, a micro-entrepreneur, Albania Elizondo Rodríguez, a micro-entrepreneur, Roberto Pérez Gutiérrez, an assistant manager, Silvia María Sosa Ulate, an administrator, Miguel Acuña Cartín and Patricia Núñez Marín. 9. All the petitions assert that the violation is rooted in Judgment No. 2000-02306 delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica on March 15, 2000, in which it prohibited the practice of in vitro fertilization by holding that Presidential Decree No. 24029-S of February 3, 1995, which regulated the use of that practice, was unconstitutional. 10. According to the petitioner, all the alleged victims attempted to have biological children; however, when that did not happen they sought medical treatment and were diagnosed as having infertility conditions. The petitioner observed that after trying various methods of assisted reproduction, all to no effect, the only viable option that they had for biological reproduction was through the use of in vitro fertilization. 11. The petitioner argued that the technique of in vitro fertilization is a tool that scientific progress has made available to infertile couples to enable them to exercise their rights to health, to reproduction, and to raise a family, rights protected under the American Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador. He added that the Protocol of San Salvador recognizes every person’s right to enjoy the benefits of scientific and technological progress. He reasoned, therefore, that the Costa Rican State must refrain from imposing any legal obstacles that would deny infertile couples access to the benefits of that progress. 12. He argued that Article 11 of the American Convention was violated in that the right to privacy protects persons from state interference in their private lives. He observed that the ban on in vitro fertilization violates the right to protection of freely made, responsible decisions regarding persons’ sexual and reproductive lives, such as the decision to raise a family and to undergo the therapeutic treatments necessary to attempt to have children. He further maintained that the State is violating the alleged victims’ right to privacy, defined as “a sphere into which no one can intrude, a zone of activity that is wholly one’s own.” 2