3 III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioner 12. The petitioner contends that on February 3, 1995, then Costa Rican President J.M. Figueres and his Minister of Health, Herman Weinstok, signed a Presidential Decree (No. 24029-S) in which they authorized the technique of in vitro fertilization for married couples and regulated its practice. 13. The petitioner asserts that a March 15, 2000 ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court nullified the Presidential Decree in question, which it declared unconstitutional on the grounds that the practice of in vitro fertilization, as regulated in the decree, implied a heavy loss of embryos caused by a conscious and deliberate manipulation of reproductive cells. As a result of that decision, the practice of in vitro fertilization was prohibited in Costa Rica. 14. According to the petitioner, the court ruling that prohibited the practice of in vitro fertilization is binding upon everyone. The petitioner underscored the fact that in its ruling, the Constitutional Chamber held that “no law can legitimately authorize its practice” (in reference to in vitro fertilization). Therefore, by prohibiting the practice of in vitro fertilization, the presidential decree was eliminated from the domestic legal system, 2 thereby creating a continuing violation of a number of rights protected under the American Convention and binding upon all persons. 15. The petitioner states that the alleged victims in the instant case were patients diagnosed as severe cases of infertility, who were on the waiting list for the in vitro fertilization procedure. As a result of the Constitutional Chamber’s ruling, the alleged victims were unable to undergo treatment in Costa Rica or had to go abroad for the treatment. In the hearing the Commission held on October 28, 2008, one of the alleged victims testified as follows: After three consecutive years of examinations, tests and surgeries, I was diagnosed with infertility resulting from an illness known as endometriosis, which caused a complete blockage of my fallopian tubes. Following these examinations and the diagnosis, I learned that the only option I had was in vitro fertilization. But the very same year that I was diagnosed, that fertilization technique was banned in Costa Rican territory. That ban not only denied me the health treatment I was seeking, but also compounded the suffering that an infertile couple experiences […] 3 16. The petitioner underscored the fact that in vitro fertilization is used for cases of infertility caused by unknown factors, endometriosis, immunological infertility, male infertility, cervical factor infertility, and so on. He also contends that there has been a surge in the use of this technique in cases of unexplained or idiopathic sterility, especially in cases of male infertility. The petitioner maintains that Costa Rica is the only state in the region that has banned the practice of in vitro fertilization within its borders. 17. The petitioner further asserts that the regulation contained in the Presidential Decree was already quite restrictive: only married couples could use in vitro fertilization; only six ova could be fertilized per period of treatment, and all embryos had to be deposited in the uterus. Disposal of fertilized eggs or preserving them for later use, either in the same patient or other patients, was strictly prohibited. 2 The petitioner mentions Article 88 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction, which provides that “rulings that declare the law or measure being challenged to be unconstitutional and orders them nullified shall have the effect of res judicata and the law or measure shall be expunged from the system.” 3 The IACHR hearing on the case, held on October 28, 2008.