select one embryo among several, and destroy, discard, freeze or experiment on any of them.” 100 81. The Costa Rican Social Security Institute appealed the judgment delivered by the Superior Court and, on May 7, 2009, the justices of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice annulled the said ruling and declared the action unfounded. 101 The First Chamber indicated that “it has been proved […] that the technique of in vitro fertilization would not be advisable for the plaintiff based on her age, because at 48 years old she has already lost her reproductive capacity with her own ovules, which makes an assisted pregnancy extraordinarily improbable and remote,” in addition to the fact that the plaintiff, “after the contested judgment, stated through the different media that she would not subject herself to in vitro fertilization owing to her age.” 102 82. Furthermore, on January 6, 2005, the Ombudsman’s Office issued note No. 001172005-DHR, based on a complaint filed by Ms. Espinoza, indicating that, following an appointment with a hospital of the Costa Rican Social Security Institute, the hospital had denied her the possibility of a fertility treatment, arguing the absence of the relevant programs, 103 and had not provided her with a medicine called Menotropin,” which the patient had been given on other occasions. 104 In the said note, the Ombudsman’s Office issued a series of recommendations, including: [The established of] a special program for the treatment of infertility and sterility of all couples and women experiencing this situation, who wish to exercise their right to maternity and paternity, and do not have the financial resources to opt for private medicals service, attention and treatment. 105 83. The Ombudsman’s Office also recommended improving the provision of services and medical attention in those areas in which medical treatment and monitoring is required, such as infertility and, lastly, the establishment of clear guidelines with regard to health care medicines. 106 E) Draft legislation 84. The Court observes that, in the context of an attempt to comply with the recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission (supra para. 1), a bill was 100 Judgment No. 835-2008 issued by the Fifth Section of the Administrative Court in the declaratory proceeding filed by Ileana Henchoz Bolaños against The Costa Rican Social Security Institute, File No. 08-001781027-CA of October 14, 2008 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume V, annex XXVIII, folio 5872). 101 First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Judgment of May 7, 2009, Case file 08-000178-1027-CA, Decision 000465-F-S1-2009 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume V, annex XXVIII, folios 5873 to 5879). 102 First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Judgment of May 7, 2009, Case file 08-000178-1027-CA, Decision 000465-F-S1-2009, forwarded by the State with the communication of January 22, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume V, annex XXVIII, folios 5873 to 5879). 103 Cf. Note No. 00117‐2005‐DHR of the Ombudsman’s Office of January 6, 2005 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume IV, annex XV, folios 5556 to 5562). 104 Cf. Doctor’s prescription for Menotropina (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume IV, annex XV, folio 5520). 105 Cf. Note No. 00117‐2005‐DHR of the Ombudsman’s Office of January 6, 2005 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume IV, annex XV, folio 5561). 106 Cf. Note No. 00117‐2005‐DHR of the Ombudsman’s Office of January 6, 2005 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume IV, annex XV, folio 5561).