sexual misfit and was drawn to “masculine” behaviour roles. This discrepancy caused him to suffer suicidal depression during adolescence. In 1975, he began hormonal treatment and began to live and work as a man. Since 1979 he has lived in a permanent and stable union with the second applicant, “Y”, a woman born in 1959. Shortly after beginning that relationship, “X” underwent gender reassignment surgery. The third applicant, “Z”12, was born in 1992 to “Y” as a result of artificial insemination by a donor (IAD). Subsequently, “Y” gave birth to another child by the same method. The complaint brought before the ECHR was prompted by the fact that the United Kingdom authorities had denied “X”‘s application to be registered as the father of “Z” in the civil registry. 16. Considerations of law. Citing several previous rulings, the ECHR recalled that “the notion of ‘family life’ in Article 8 is not confined solely to families based on marriage and may encompass other de facto relationships,” and added that “when deciding whether a relationship can be said to amount to “family life”, a number of factors may be relevant, including whether the couple live together, the length of their relationship and whether they have demonstrated their commitment to each other by having children together or by any other means (para. 36).” As a starting point, I consider that “regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of individual and of the community as a whole” and that “the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation” (para. 41). On the specific point of parental recognition (para. 44), the ECHR observed that “there is no common European standard with respect to the granting of parental rights to transsexuals” and that it has not been established “that there exists any generally shared approach amongst the High Contracting Parties with regard to the manner in which the social relationship between a child conceived by AID and the person who performs the role of father should be reflected in law.” The Court added that, “although the technology of medically assisted procreation has been available in Europe for several decades, many of the issues to which it gives rise, particularly with regard to the question of filiation, remain the subject of debate. For example, there is no consensus amongst the Member States of the Council of Europe on the question of whether the interests of a child conceived in such a way are best served by preserving the anonymity of the donor of the sperm or whether the child should have the right to know the donor’s identity.” Therefore, since the issues in the case “touch on areas where there is little common ground” amongst the Member States of the Council of Europe and, generally speaking, the law appears to be in a transitional stage, the respondent State must be afforded a wide margin of appreciation.” In conclusion it stated, “given that transsexuality raises complex scientific, legal, moral and social issues, in respect of which there is no generally shared approach among the Contracting States, the Court is of the opinion that Article 8 cannot, in this context, be taken to imply an obligation for the respondent State to formally recognize as the father of a child a person who is not the biological father.” Therefore (para. 52), “the fact that the law of the United Kingdom does not allow special legal recognition of the relationship between X and Z does not amount to a failure to respect family life within the meaning of that provision.” 17. Clearly, the extensive citation of judgments by the ECHR does not imply that the Inter-American Court should take these as required precedents. As mentioned previously (supra, para. 4), these rulings have “persuasive value” to the extent that the arguments contained therein may be intrinsically convincing, something that will depend, in good measure, “on the status of the Court from which they emanate, and on the personality of the judge who drafted the judgment.”13 In view of the status of the ECHR and the similarity 12 In his concurring opinion, Judge L-E. Pettiti stated that “Should there be another case like this one, it would no doubt be desirable for the Commission and the Court to suggest to the parties that a lawyer be instructed specifically to represent the interests of the child alone.” 13 Cfr. Alberto Pérez Pérez, “Reseña de la vida jurídica angloamericana,” in Revista de Derecho Jurisprudencia y Administración, t. 61, pages. 109-120 (the citation is from page 112). 7