17. The petitioner reports that on March 15, 2000, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica, by means of judgment 2000.02306, granted a motion of unconstitutionality, annulling Presidential Decree 24049-S on the grounds that the practice of in vitro fertilization, as regulated in that decree, was unconstitutional in Costa Rica. The Constitutional Chamber based its decision on the fact that the technique of in vitro fertilization practice at that time implied a high loss of embryos, caused directly by the conscious and deliberate manipulation of reproductive cells. 18. The petitioner argued that the technique of in vitro fertilization as regulated in Costa Rica was not a threat to life. He claimed, on the basis of medical studies, that not all human embryos develop to birth, and that the percentages of successful gestation in natural processes and in in vitro fertilization are similar. 19. The petitioner also challenged the ruling by the Constitutional Chamber that the human embryo is a person in law. He referred to Article 31 and Article 1004 of the Costa Rican Civil Code, arguing that, while there is protection for the fetus, this is not absolute but conditional upon its live birth. 20. The petitioner argues that the right to life is relative, and that although it is a fundamental right, it is subject to limitations when it is opposed to the protection of other fundamental rights. He presents the present situation in that context, maintaining that to protect one right unconditionally is in effect to deny other rights. 21. The petitioner extends this concept of relativity to the protection of life as of the moment of conception. He claims that the American Convention recognizes this relativity in declaring, in Article 4, that life must be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. He adds, however, that this right must be examined in light of Article 32 of the Convention, which stipulates the relationship between rights and duties. 22. The petitioner maintains that the prohibition on the practice of in vitro fertilization in Costa Rica constitutes discrimination and unequal treatment among patients, thereby violating Articles 1 and 24 of the American Convention. He argues that this prohibition makes it impossible to treat persons suffering from sterility or infertility, while at the same time it allows for the use of scientific and technological advances to cure or alleviate other illnesses. The petitioner argues further that the prohibition of in vitro fertilization implies violation of the right to health, enshrined in Article 10 of the Protocol of San Salvador, and the right to physical, mental and moral integrity protected in Article 5 of the American Convention. 23. The petitioner also claims that the State of Costa Rica violated Article 17 of the American Convention through its prohibition of in vitro fertilization, by denying to men and women who suffer from infertility or sterility the possibility of founding or constituting a family. He adds that, by the same reasoning, the State of Costa Rica has violated Article 15(2) of the Protocol of San Salvador. 24. The petitioner argues that the prohibition on in vitro fertilization in Costa Rica also constitutes arbitrary and abusive interference in the private and family life of persons who need and want to undergo that medical procedure in order to found a family, thereby violating Article 11(2) of the American Convention. He adds that, given the nature of the unconstitutionality judgment, the presumed victims were unable to enforce their rights or to be heard, which he claims is a violation of the judicial guaranties established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 25. The petitioner further claims violation of Articles 1 and 7(h) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, the Convention of Belém do Pará. The petitioner observes that the prohibition of in vitro fertilization in Costa Rica has caused severe pain and suffering to the presumed victims, and in particular to the women, and maintains that the Costa Rican State failed to take effective measures to prevent or address those violations. He stresses that there is very strong pressure, especially on women, to have children, and that the lack of treatment prolongs and exacerbates the emotional suffering caused by that pressure. 3