adds that the Protocol of San Salvador recognizes the right of every person to enjoy the benefits of scientific and technological progress and, consequently, that the Costa Rican State should refrain from legally preventing infertile couples from availing themselves of such progress. 32. The petitioner alleges that Article 11 of the American Convention has been violated in the sense that said right protects persons from government interference in their private lives. He indicates that the prohibition of in vitro fertilization violates the right to protection of free and responsible decisions concerning the sexual and reproductive lives of individuals, such as decisions to raise a family and to undergo the necessary therapeutic treatments to attempt to have children. He also maintains that the State violates the privacy rights of the alleged victims, which he describes as “a realm which no one can invade, a field of activity that is the absolute province of each individual.”4 33. He states further that the prohibition of in vitro fertilization in Costa Rica violates the right of the alleged victims to raise their own families, enshrined in Article 17.2 of the American Convention, as well as the right to have children, which is necessary in order to exercise the right to raise a family. He also maintains that such prohibition, which affects infertile couples, violates the overall obligation of nondiscrimination established in Article 1 of the American Convention. 34. The petitioner alleges that Article 24 of the American Convention has been violated in the sense of discrimination against persons with disabilities. He affirms that there is an unwarranted difference in the treatment given to a person, or a group or category of persons (sterile persons), in relation to others (who are not sterile). He also maintains that the prohibition of in vitro fertilization created a situation of discrimination for reasons of economic status because couples with financial resources are able to go abroad while couples without such resources do not have that option. 35. The petitioner affirms that a person’s right to life is not absolute but is, rather, subject to exceptions and conditions. He also argues that the American Convention established the principle of relativity when stating in Article 4 that life, in general, is protected from the moment of conception. He also questions the legal status of the embryo, arguing that birth determines the existence of the human being and the recognition of his legal personhood; and he says that every person who comes to this world is a person before the law if he meets the two conditions of being born and being born alive. 36. The petitioner states that Ms. Ileana Henchoz Bolaños (victim in case 12.361) sued the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (case file no. 089-000178-1027-CA) to obtain in vitro fertilization. On October 14, 2008, the Superior Tribunal of Contentious Civil Treasury Matters ordered the Costa Rican Social Security Fund to provide Ms. Henchoz with in vitro fertilization because she was not prohibited from receiving such treatment under domestic law as long as the defects described by the Constitutional Chamber in its judgment 2000-02306 of March 15, 2000, did not apply. 37. The judgment was appealed by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund on August 19, 2009. The magistrates of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice reversed that ruling and found the suit groundless. The petitioner maintains that the Chamber’s central argument was that the complainant had no interest in the proceeding because, given her age, she could no longer undergo this procedure. 38. As for the exhaustion of remedies under domestic jurisdiction, the petitioner maintains that Article 11 of Costa Rica’s Constitutional Jurisdiction Act provides that judgments, decrees, or provisions of the constitutional court cannot be appealed. Consequently, no remedy is admissible and Article 46.1.a of the American Convention applies. 39. As for the deadline for presentation, the petitioner maintains that the existence of a jurisprudential rule in force under domestic law that is final and binding on all judicial, administrative, and legislative bodies in Costa Rica establishes per se a legal situation that affects 4 Communication from the petitioner, dated January 19, 2007. 5