72. On March 15, 2000 the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered a judgment, 83 whereby it declared “the admissibility of the action [and] annulled Executive Decree No. 24029-S due to unconstitutionality.” 84 The reasons given by the Constitutional Chamber to support its decision were, first, the “violation of the legal principle” whereby “only through a formal law issued by the Legislature, according to the procedure established in the Constitution for the enactment of laws, is it possible to regulate and, if appropriate, restrict fundamental rights and freedoms.” Based on the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Executive Decree regulated the “right to life and dignity of the human being,” and therefore “[t]he regulation of these rights by the Executive Branch [was] incompatible with Constitutional law.” 73. In addition, when considering that Article 4(1) of the American Convention was applicable, the Constitutional Chamber stated the following: The question of when human life begins is of transcendental importance in the matter under discussion here, since it is necessary to determine the moment from which the human being is subject to protection under our legal system. There are different views among specialists. Some consider that human embryos are entities at a stage of development where they have nothing more than a simple potential for life. [….] They point out that prior to its attachment, the pre-embryo is composed of undifferentiated cells, and that cellular differentiation does not occur until after it has attached to the lining of the uterus and after the appearance of the primitive cell line – the first outline of the nervous system; from that moment the organ systems and the organs are formed. […] Others, on the contrary, maintain that every human being has a unique beginning that occurs at the very moment of fertilization. They define the embryo as the original form of a being, or as the earliest form of a being and consider that the term pre-embryo does not exist, since prior to the embryo, at the preceding stage, there is a spermatozoid and an egg. When the spermatozoid fertilizes the egg that entity becomes a zygote and therefore an embryo. The most important feature of this cell is that everything that will allow it to evolve into an individual is already in place; all the necessary and sufficient information to determine the characteristics of a new human being appear to come together in the union of the twenty-three chromosomes of the spermatozoid and the twenty-three chromosomes of the ovocyte […] In describing the segmentation of the cells that occurs immediately after fertilization, this view holds that at the three-cell stage a minuscule human being exists and from that stage every individual is unique, rigorously different from any other. In short, as soon as conception occurs, a person is a person and we are in the presence of a living being, with the right to be protected by the legal system. 85 (Underlining added) 74. The Constitutional Chamber also determined that the practice of IVF “clearly jeopardizes the life and dignity of the human being.” 86 In its reasoning, the Constitutional Chamber indicated that: (i) “[h]uman beings have the right not to be deprived of their life or to suffer unlawful attacks by the State or by private individuals, but not only this: public authorities and civil society must help them defend themselves from the dangers to their life”; (ii) “once conceived, a person is a person, and we are dealing with a living being, with the right to be protected by the law,” and (iii) “since the right [to life] is declared for everyone, with no exception, it must be protected for both the individual who has been born, and also for the unborn child.” 87 83 Judgment No. 2000-02306 of March 15, 2000, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, File No. 95-001734-007-CO (file of annexes to the report, volume I, folios 76 to 96). 84 Judgment No. 2000-02306 of March 15, 2000, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case file No. 95-001734-007-CO (file of annexes to the merits report, volume I, folios 95). 85 Judgment No. 2000-02306 of March 15, 2000, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case file No. 95-001734-007-CO (file of annexes to the merits report, volume I, folios 88 and 89). 86 Judgment No. 2000-02306 of March 15, 2000, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case file No. 95-001734-007-CO (file of annexes to the merits report, volume I, folio 94). 87 Judgment No. 2000-02306 of March 15, 2000, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case file No. 95-001734-007-CO (file of annexes to the merits report, volume I, folios 88 and 90).