4 18. The petitioner contends that the Constitutional Chamber held that the human embryo had the same standing in law as a human person, thereby according the embryo an absolute right to life that allows of no exceptions, conditions, or restrictions and thus pre-empts all other rights. 19. According to the petitioner, the Constitutional Chamber’s interpretation of the ultimate fate of the human embryo reveals a subjectivity that attaches blame to those professionals who practice in vitro fertilization for an act that occurs in nature by the law of natural selection. The petitioner asserts that the notion that every human embryo will automatically end up becoming a newborn is wrong. The petitioner argues that in fact, there is extensive bibliography demonstrating that not every human embryo develops to birth. To the contrary, as many as 80% of all human embryos either fail to become implanted in the uterus or otherwise fail to develop to birth, either in the form of a biochemical abortion (when the pregnancy is not clinically apparent) or a clinical abortion (when pregnancy is already clinically apparent). He states that one can reasonably conclude that of every 100 eggs fertilized by natural means, approximately 20 will be born. The petitioner contends that the early gestational loss of the human species that is nature’s doing is not challenged; however, if man intervenes to ensure the existence of embryos and gestational losses occur as a result, then it is subject to question and in fact impermissible. 20. The petitioner argues that the State cannot interfere in a couple’s decision to have children, as it would be violating their right to privacy and interfering in the sexual and reproductive life of persons. He claims that this would be a violation of Article 11 of the American Convention. The petitioner observes that the right to family planning includes the possibility of using techniques of artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization whenever reproduction cannot be achieved naturally. He maintains that the prohibition of in vitro fertilization constitutes arbitrary and abusive interference in the private and family lives of persons who need and want to undergo the procedure in order to reproduce and found a family. 21. According to the petitioner, the relationship between the physician and his/her patient is absolutely private, and the State therefore has no authority to prohibit an individual from undergoing that treatment. Actions that are not contrary to public order, morals and good customs are beyond the reach of the law. 22. He argues that the State has recognized the right to family planning, and references Decree No. 27913-S, published on June 9, 1999. It created an Inter-institutional Commission on Reproductive Health and Rights and Sexual Rights. The decree states the following: 4 5.- It is the undelegable duty of the Costa Rican State to ensure that the public’s rights to sexual and reproductive health are protected and to respect and enforce the international commitments undertaken in that regard, which uphold the right of all persons to control every aspect of their health and, in particular, their reproductive capacity. 6.- The Costa Rican State has an obligation to respect the principle of the free will of adult men and women. 23. As for the alleged violation of the right to found a family, the petitioner contends that recognition of the right to reproduce, i.e., to have issue, is a condition sine qua non for exercise of the right to found a family. The petitioner argues that the right to found a family is so fundamental that if violated, denied or otherwise not recognized, exercise of this right would be both materially and legally impossible. 4 Executive Decree No. 27913-S published in La Gaceta on June 9, 1999, paragraphs 5 and 6.