steps we have taken have been forced on us, necessitated by the fact that we are unable to pursue scientific and technological procedures in Costa Rica.”23 As to the effects of the prohibition, they said that it has been a cause of “great anxiety”24 and that “it is an egregious violation of our right to form a family with the resources that modern science and technology make possible (…) our life plan is precisely that, to give life.”25 V. THE LAW AND CONCLUSIONS 39. Based on the facts that the Commission has taken as established and on the positions of the parties, the problem that the present case poses is the prohibition of the assisted reproduction technique of in vitro fertilization as a result of a decision by the Constitutional Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court. This prohibition is an across-the-board ban affecting all persons and/or couples who require in vitro fertilization in order to follow through with their decision to have biological children. 40. The two organs of the inter-American human rights system have already had an opportunity to decide this situation within the framework of the petition and case system. 41. Thus, on July 14, 2010, the Commission approved merits report 85/10 in case 12,361. When no action was taken on the recommendations the Commission made in its report, it decided to refer the case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. After hearing the case, the Inter-American Court issued its Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs on November 28, 2012. 42. In application of the principle of procedural economy and inasmuch as the problem is, as previously observed, a general one that both organs of the inter-American human rights system have already taken up and decided, the Inter-American Commission establishes the international responsibility of the Costa Rican State by reference to the analysis of the law and articles invoked both in its merits report 85/10 regarding case 12,361 - Artavia Murillo et al.,26 and in the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights delivered.27 Based on the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Costa Rica violated the rights enshrined in Articles 5 (humane treatment), 7 (personal liberty), 11.2 (to private and family life), 17.2 (to raise a family) and 24 (equal protection of the law) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 (to respect rights) and 2 (duty to adopt provisions of domestic law) of the same instrument, in detriment of Daniel Gerardo Gómez Murillo, Aída Marcela Garita Sánchez, Roberto Pérez Gutiérrez, Silvia María Sosa Ulate, Luis Miguel Cruz Comparaz, Raquel Sanvicente Rojas, Randall Alberto Torres Quirós, Geanina Isela Marín Rankin, Carlos Edgardo López Vega, Albania Elizondo Rodríguez, Miguel Acuña Cartín and Patricia Núñez Marín. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 43. Given the particulars of the present case, when the reparations to be made are determined, consideration must be given to the degree of compliance with the decisions handed down by the Commission and the Court in case 12,361 with respect to the general measures that, by their nature, will have an impact on all other cases of individuals and/or couples affected by the prohibition. 23 Document titled “Testimony of Miguel Acuña Cartín and Patricia Núñez Marín” (Annex 1 of the original petition of May 2, 24 Document titled “Testimony of Miguel Acuña Cartín and Patricia Núñez Marín” (Annex 1 of the original petition of May 2, 25 Document titled “Testimony of Miguel Acuña Cartín and Patricia Núñez Marín” (Annex 1 of the original petition of May 2, 2007). 2007). 2007). 26 27 Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.361Eng.pdf. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_257_ing.pdf. 8