7 conditions required by domestic law. The State reasons that while “parents must have the right to have children, to do so by depriving other human beings of their lives can hardly be lawful.” 7 34. According to the State, the Constitutional Chamber held that “…science and biotechnology are advancing at such a dizzying pace that the technique may one day be improved to the point that the objections raised here may be moot.” 8 In other words, given the way in which the technique was being used at the time of the Constitutional Chamber’s ruling, the view was that any elimination or destruction of embryos, whether intentional or as a result of the ineptitude of the person applying the technique or its imprecision, was a violation of the right to life. Hence, the technique was deemed to be in violation of constitutional law and of Article 4 of the American Convention. 35. The State asserts further that Mrs. Ileana Henchoz Bolaños (one of the alleged victims in the case sub examine) sought a declaratory judgment against the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social [Costa Rican Social Security Institute] (case file No.089-000178-1027-CA) in which the court would order that she be administered the in vitro fertilization procedure. According to the State, the October 15, 2008 ruling of the Superior Court of Accounts for Contentious Administrative and Civil Proceedings upheld the State’s position in this regard. The Superior Court held that the Constitutional Chamber had not declared in vitro fertilization as an assisted reproductive technique to be unconstitutional; instead, the Constitutional Chamber’s earlier interpretation of domestic and international law was that “the procedure as practiced in the year 2000 […] undoubtedly exposed embryos to a disproportionately high risk of death.” 9 36. The State alleges that the ruling of the Superior Court of Accounts for Contentious Administrative and Civil Proceedings recognized that the Constitutional Chamber’s judgment was final. The State cites a portion of the Superior Court’s decision, as follows: 10 whenever in vitro fertilization is indicated, this procedure shall be performed in accordance with the guidelines established by the Constitutional Chamber […] based on the technique as it can practiced at this time: in other words, only one ovum can be fertilized and transferred in each of the patient’s reproductive cycles; two or more eggs cannot be fertilized in the same reproductive cycle, and it is strictly prohibited to select one embryo from among several, or to destroy, dispose of or cryo-preserve embryos or experiment with them. 37. However, at the hearing the Commission held on case 12,361 during its 133rd session, the State told the Commission that the probability of success when only one egg is fertilized is very small, which means that the procedure would have to be repeated multiple times over to achieve pregnancy and that many embryos would be lost in the process. The State also indicated that the procedure that the Contentious Administrative Law Court established has little chance of success and the embryo loss rate is high. Finally, the State concluded that the Constitutional Chamber did not prohibit in vitro fertilization; instead, its finding was that the procedure could be conducted when the technique is perfected and the embryo loss rate is low. 11 7 Communication from the State, dated November 16, 2006. 8 Communication from the State, dated November 24, 2008, in which it cites part of Judgment No. 2000-2306, which the Constitutional Chamber delivered on March 15, 2000. 9 Communication from the State, dated January 29, 2009. 10 Communication from the State, dated November 24, 2008, in which it cites part of Judgment No. 2000-2306, which the Constitutional Chamber delivered on March 15, 2000. IACHR, Record of Hearing No. 46, Case 12,361, P1368-04, P16-05, P678-06, P1191-06 In Vitro Fertilization, October 28, 2008. 11