Court observes that in conformity with Article 11 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction of Costa Rica, judgments, decisions or rulings of the Constitutional Chamber cannot be appealed. 37 In addition, in Costa Rica the control of constitutionality is concentrated, 38 so that this Chamber hears all applications for amparo filed in the country. 27. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that filing an application for amparo was not appropriate to remedy the situation of the presumed victims, because the highest court in the constitutional jurisdiction had issued its final decision with regard to the main legal problems that had to be resolved in this case concerning the scope of the protection of prenatal life (infra para. 162). Since the Constitutional Chamber hears all applications for amparo filed in Costa Rica, if the victims had filed an application for amparo, this same Chamber would have had to decide it. Furthermore, the presumed victims sought to receive the IVF treatment under the regulation contained in the Executive Decree. In view of the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the decree as a whole, the possibility of obtaining access to IVF under the conditions established by the Constitutional Chamber was substantially different from the interests and claims of the presumed victims. Consequently, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Court considers it unreasonable to require the presumed victims to continue exhausting applications for amparo if the highest judicial instance on constitutional matters had already ruled on the specific aspects contested by the presumed victims. Thus, the function of this remedy of domestic law was not appropriate to protect the legal situation harmed and, consequently, could not be considered a domestic remedy that had to be exhausted. 39 28. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State. B) Time-barred petition filed by Karen Espinoza and Héctor Jiménez Acuña 29. The State argued that the Inter-American Commission had indicated that the petition filed by Karen Espinoza and Héctor Jiménez was “time-barred, because it had been submitted outside the six-month period established by Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention.” It indicated that these presumed victims “cannot be included in the petition of January 19, 2001, given that, at that time, they were unaware of their condition” of infertility, because Ms. Espinoza found out about her infertility in July 2002. It argued that “if it is considered that the brief of October 2, 2003, introduces for the first time” the complaint by these presumed victims, “it is clear that, from the time that she learned of her condition – July 2002 – to October 2003, considerably more than six months elapsed,” which is the term established by the Convention to file a complaint. It added that “the problem with this petition was the Commission’s delay in analyzing the admissibility of the request presented, a process that lasted approximately three years (from January 2001 to March 2004); this is why the petitioners were included who, in its own words, could not have been included in the original petition because they had not even been declared infertile 37 Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction, Law No. 7135 of October 11, 1989. Article 4 of this law establishes that “the constitutional jurisdiction is exercised by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.” The second section of article 11 establishes that “There shall be no remedy against the judgments, decisions or rulings of the constitutional jurisdiction.” Cf. File of the annexes to the report on merits, volume I, annex 1, folios 42 and 44. 38 Article 2 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Law 7135 of October 11, 1989) establishes a concentrated constitutional control exercised by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, making it the only body with competence to decide on the remedy of amparo and the constitutionality of laws of any nature. 39 Similarly, Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 85.