26. The petitioner argued at first that the victims in the present case could not be identified individually because they chose confidentiality in order not to be subjected to interference in their private lives. Moreover, he declared that the identity of the victims would only be revealed if requested by the Commission. Nevertheless, as noted earlier, in his later communications the petitioner presented a list of signatures of the presumed victims, who declared that they were granting him powers to represent them before the Commission. 27. The petitioner asks the Commission to declare that the prohibition of in vitro fertilization violates Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11.2, 17, 24, 25, 26 and 32 of the American Convention, and also Articles 3, 10 and 15 of the Protocol of San Salvador and Articles 1 and 7(h) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. He also asks that the victims be granted the right to fair compensation for the injuries caused to them, in particular in relation to those victims who had to move abroad in order to perform fertilization, and those who, because of their advanced age, would be unable to have children even if the practice were allowed in the future. 28. The petitioner also asks that the status of victim be accorded the company that acquired the medical equipment for practicing in vitro fertilization in Costa Rica, and that was unable to make use of that equipment because of the prohibition issued by the Constitutional Chamber. B. The State 29. The State argues that, from the biological and legislative viewpoint, it can be demonstrated that the duty to protect a life begins at the moment that life is determined to exist. The State adds that it does not matter whether that life is incorporated in a visible human being, but that on the contrary, protection must be given to that life at the earliest moment of its existence. It insists that, with fertilization, a human life begins to develop, and that it must be protected. 30. The State maintains that, even though Executive Decree 24029-S required that all fertilized audios must be implanted in the maternal uterus, and it prohibited their elimination or preservation, the mere manipulation of embryos so that only one will survive means the death of other embryos. Moreover, it argues, even if deaths occur within the maternal uterus as a result of natural causes it is unacceptable that death should be predictable as a result of human manipulation. The State adds that the problem is not limited to the number of human lives lost, but has to do primarily with the predictability of those deaths. 31. The State rejects the petitioner's argument that the embryo has no legal personality. The State uses legislative arguments such as the provisions of the Costa Rican Civil Code, Article 31 of which protects the right to life as of 300 days prior to birth. 32. In addition, the State argues that the technique of in vitro fertilization is not an emergency treatment to save lives. It maintains that infertility or sterility should not be considered a disease, because it does not involve an alteration of a person's health, but is rather a biological condition or consequence of a disease. It maintains that in vitro fertilization is not an emergency treatment nor a cure for a disease, since it does not resolve its causes: it is, instead, an artificial recourse that seeks to overcome that biological condition. The State concludes that it would be playing with human lives to practice in vitro fertilization, for this reason it would be contrary to the rights that protect life within Costa Rican domestic law. 33. The State also argues that authorization of in vitro fertilization in Costa Rica would be violating not only the right to life recognized in the American Convention, but also other instruments of international human rights law such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes the need for special protection for children, both before and after birth. 34. The State maintains that the principle of equality and nondiscrimination does not mean giving identical treatment to each medical situation, but instead requires that the particular circumstances of each case be considered in order to provide proper medical intervention. It insists that the treatment to which people suffering from infertility or sterility may submit must be limited by the provisions of the Constitution and by international provisions for the protection of human rights. 4