4. Petition 545-07 (Miguel Acuña Cartín and Patricia Núñez Marín) 23. On May 3, 2007, the Commission received the petition and assigned it no. 54507. On May 30, 2007, the IACHR transmitted the relevant sections of the petition to the Costa Rican State, requesting that within a period of two months it present its reply, as provided in Article 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. The State’s reply was received on July 31, 2007. That communication was duly transmitted to the petitioners. 24. In addition, on October 28, 2008, during the 133rd regular period of sessions of the IACHR, a public hearing was held on petition 1368-04 and on case 12.361, which is in the merits phase. The hearing was attended by the representative of the alleged victims and representatives of the Costa Rican State and included testimony from an alleged victim in case 12.361, Andrea Bianchi Bruno. 25. As provided in Article 29.d of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, petition 54507 was joined to petition 1368-04. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioner 26. The petitioner alleges violations of the human rights of: Aída Marcela Garita Sánchez, teacher, Daniel Gerardo Gómez Murillo, chemist, Luis Miguel Cruz Comparaz, tour guide, Raquel Sanvicente Rojas, housewife, Randall Alberto Torres, graduate in English, Geanina Isela Marín Rankin, graduate in electronic engineering, Carlos Edgardo López Vega, small business owner, Albania Elizondo Rodríguez, small business owner, Roberto Pérez Gutiérrez, management assistant, Silvia María Sosa Ulate, manager, Miguel Acuña Cartín, and Patricia Núñez Marín. 27. The petitioner alleges that the human rights violation stems from judgment 200002306, issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica on March 15, 2000, which prohibited the practice of in vitro fertilization by declaring unconstitutional Presidential Decree No. 24029-S of February 3, 1995, which regulated that practice. 28. According to the petitioner, the alleged victims attempted to have biological children and, when they were unable, sought medical assistance and were diagnosed with infertility. After attempting various methods of assisted reproduction, all unsuccessful, the only viable option they had for procreating biologically was in vitro fertilization. According to testimony recorded in the case file, the alleged victims were diagnosed with infertility after the year 2000. 29. The petitioner says this procedure is used for women with blocked fallopian tubes, who are missing their fallopian tubes, or who have bilateral and irreversible injury to those tubes, whether caused by infection or trauma, and which cannot be surgically repaired. It is also used in cases of unexplained infertility, endometriosis, immunological infertility, male infertility, and other conditions. 30. The petitioner adds that assisted reproduction techniques, among them in vitro fertilization, include a broad range of procedures designed to increase the probability of conception by placing the egg and sperm in proximity using various techniques. He states that this medical procedure promotes the legitimate exercise of the rights to human reproduction and health, which are implicitly recognized in the American Convention, since they stem from the right to freedom and self-determination, the right to personal and family privacy, the right to raise a family, and the right to equality expressly recognized in the American Convention and in other international human rights instruments. 31. According to the petitioner, in vitro fertilization is a tool of scientific progress that allows infertile couples to exercise their right to health, to reproduction, and to raise a family, which are values protected by the American Convention and by the Protocol of San Salvador. He 4