70. In vitro fertilization was practiced in Costa Rica from 1995 to 2000 78 by the private entity Instituto Costarricense de Infertilidad. 79 During that period, 15 Costa Rican babies were born. 80 The technique was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Chamber in Judgment No. 2000-02306 of March 15, 2000. C) Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of March 15, 2000 71. In accordance with article 75 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction, 81 any citizen may file an action of unconstitutionality against a norm “when, owing to the nature of the matter, there is no direct individual injury, or when it relates to the defense of diffuse interests or those that relate to the community as a whole.” Based on this article, on April 7, 1995, Hermes Navarro del Valle filed an action of unconstitutionality against the Executive Decree that regulated IVF in Costa Rica, using different arguments relating to the violation of the right to life. 82 The petitioner requested that: (i) the Decree be declared unconstitutional because it violated the right to life; (ii) the practice of in vitro fertilization be declared unconstitutional, and (iii) “the public authorities be instructed to monitor medical practice closely, to ensure that such acts do not recur.” The arguments put forward in the action for unconstitutionality included the following: (i) in general, the percentage of malformations was greater than that recorded for natural fertilization”; (ii) “the generalized practice [of IVF] violates human life [and] owing to the private and isolated characteristics […] in which this insemination takes place, any regulation would be difficult for the State to implement and monitor”; (iii) “human life begins from the moment of fertilization; therefore, following conception, any elimination or destruction, whether voluntary or arising from the negligence of the doctor or the inaccuracy of the technique used – would result in a clear violation of the right to life contained” in the Costa Rican Constitution; (iv) reference was made to the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child; (v) it was argued that “the business of in vitro fertilization [is] a business, […] it does not provide a cure for […] a disease, and [is] not an emergency treatment to save a life,” and (vi) “the elimination of the product of conception, in other words, children, discarding them, produces the same violation as eliminating them deliberately owing to the lack of technique in the procedure, attempting to play some kind of ‘Russian roulette’ with the six children introduced into the mother.” 78 “On October 14, 1995, the first child resulting from in vitro fertilization was born.” Cf. Statement by deponent Escalante (merits file, volume V, folio 2388). See also newspaper articles in La Nación of October 15, 1995, entitled “Nació Esteban” and “Esteban, alianza fecunda” (merits file, volume I, folio 587.40). 79 Cf. Statement by deponent Ribas: “In Costa Rica, our group started in vitro fertilization in September 1994. […] Our results for 1994 to 1996 were published in the Acta Medica Costarricense […]. As we were the only center in the country, we decided to submit our efforts to the scrutiny of the Red Latinoamericana de Reproducción Asistida [Latin American Assisted Reproduction Network], which we had been members of since its creation until the decision that prohibited the technique” (merits report, volume V, folios 2242 and 2248). 80 Deponent Escalante stated that “[f]rom September 1994 to March 2000, 121 couples were treated with 149 complete cycles of in vitro fertilization; [of these,] 15 full-term pregnancies that resulted in the birth of a child were achieved” (merits report, volume V, folio 2392). 81 Article 75 stipulates that “[i]n order to file an action of unconstitutionality, there must be a matter pending a decision by the courts, including for habeas corpus or amparo, or in the proceedings to exhaust the administrative jurisdiction, in which this unconstitutionality is cited as a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest that is considered harmed. This previous case pending a decision shall not be necessary when, owing to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct harm, or in the case of the defense of diffuse interests or those that relate to the collectivity as a whole.” 82 Action on unconstitutionality filed on April 7, 1995 (file of annexes to the answering brief, volume VII, folios 10455, 10456, 10458, 10464, 10465 and 10466).