REPORT No. 156/10 PETITION 1368-04 ADMISSIBILITY DANIEL GERARDO GOMEZ, AIDA MARCELA GARITA ET AL. COSTA RICA November 1, 2010 I. SUMMARY 1. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission,” “the Inter-American Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received five petitions presented by Gerardo Trejos Salas (hereinafter “the petitioner”), on December 14, 2004, on behalf of Daniel Gerardo Gómez Murillo and Aída Marcela Garita Sánchez (P 1368-04); on December 27, 2004, on behalf of Roberto Pérez Gutiérrez and Silvia María Sosa Ulate (P 16-05); on June 28, 2006, on behalf of Luis Miguel Cruz Comparaz, Raquel Sanvicente Rojas, Randall Alberto Torres Quirós, and Geanina Isela Marín Rankin (P 678-06); on October 17, 2006, on behalf of Carlos Edgardo López Vega and Albania Elizondo Rodríguez (P 1191-06); and on May 3, 2007, on behalf of Miguel Acuña Cartín and Patricia Núñez Marín (P 545-07) (hereinafter “the alleged victims”). The petitions were lodged against the State of Costa Rica (hereinafter “the State,” “the Costa Rican State,” or “Costa Rica”) with regard to the alleged violation of human rights arising from judgment 2000-02306, dated March 15, 2000, of the Constitutional Chamber of Costa Rica, which prohibited in vitro fertilization by declaring Presidential Decree 24029-S of February 3, 1995, unconstitutional. 2. The petitioner alleges that the aforementioned decision prevented the alleged victims from availing themselves of in vitro fertilization and, therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 1 (obligation to respect rights), 2 (obligation to adopt measures under domestic law), 11 (right to privacy), 17.2 (right to raise a family), and 24 (right to equal protection before the law) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”). In petitions 1191-06, 678-06, and 545-07, the petitioner also alleges that violations occurred in respect of Articles 4.1 (right to life), 5.2 (right to humane treatment), and 26 (progressive development of economic, social, and cultural rights) of the American Convention, as well as in respect of Articles 1, 2, 3, 10, 14.1.b, and 18 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention in the area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (hereinafter “Protocol of San Salvador”). As for the exhaustion of remedies under domestic jurisdiction, the petitioner maintains that domestic remedies were exhausted under Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. 3. According to the State, at the domestic level it was determined that the conditions under which in vitro fertilization was performed constituted a threat to human life, and this value and right take precedence over any other. As for the admissibility requirements, the State maintains that the petitions should have been found inadmissible because the allegations do not describe violations of human rights guaranteed by the American Convention and because they were submitted after the applicable deadline, that is, beyond the period of six months stipulated in Article 46.1.b of the American Convention and paragraph 32.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR”). 4. As provided in Article 29.d of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, petitions nos. 16-05, 678-06, and 1191-06 were joined on March 11, 2009, to petition 1368-04, because they deal with similar facts and allegations. Petition 545-07 was joined thereto on April 22, 2010. 5. Without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission concludes in this report that the petition is admissible, in the light of Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Therefore, the Inter-American Commission has decided to notify the parties of its decision and proceed with the examination of the merits concerning the alleged violations of Articles 5.1, 11.2, 17.2, and 24 of the American Convention, in keeping, in each case, with the general obligation to respect and safeguard rights, as set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of that international instrument. As for Articles 4 and 26, also cited, the Commission found the petition 1