admissibility of arguments related to the factual framework in order to safeguard the procedural equality of the parties. 218 132. The Court notes that the Commission did not allege the context mentioned by representative Molina. However, the facts used by the representative to allege this context were described by the Inter-American Commission in its Merits Report. In this regard, the Court considers that the representative did not provide sufficient information or arguments to allow it to be considered that this case falls within the framework of “a State policy” against IVF and “any other method of assisted reproduction” in Costa Rica. Therefore, the Court considers that this case is not related to the alleged “State policy” presented by representative Molina. Notwithstanding the above, it will take into account the facts described by the representative when analyzing the merits. 133. In relation to the violations alleged by the two representatives on the interference of the media and society in the private life of the presumed victims, regarding which the State filed a preliminary objection (supra para. 40), the Court observes that the facts that support this argument were not included in the merits report issued by the Commission; therefore, they will not be considered part of the factual framework of the case. 134. Lastly, the Court underscores that the State presented general arguments related to the presumed effects or problems that IVF could cause in relation to: (i) potential risks that the practice could have for women; (ii) alleged psychological effects on couples who seek this treatment; (iii) presumed genetic risks to the embryos and the children born as a result of the treatment; (iv) the alleged risk of multiple births; (v) the supposed problems resulting from cryoconservation of embryos, and vi) the possible legal problems and dilemmas that could arise from the application of the technique. 135. In this regard, the Court considers that although the State produced evidence and arguments regarding the above, in order to analyze their merits, the Court will only take into account the evidence and allegations related to the arguments explicitly used in the reasoning of the Constitutional Chamber’s judgment. Thus, and based on the subsidiary nature of the inter-American system, 219 the Court is not competent to decide disputes that were not taken into account by the Constitutional Chamber to support the judgment that declared Executive Decree No. 24029-S unconstitutional. VIII RIGHT TO PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE AND RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY IN RELATION TO PERSONAL AUTONOMY, SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS AND THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION 136. In this chapter, the Court will determine, first, the scope of the rights to privacy and to family life, and their relationship with other treaty-based rights, as relevant to settling the dispute (A). Next, it will analyze the effects of the ban on IVF (B). Then, it will interpret Article 4(1) of the American Convention as relevant to this case (C). Finally, it will decide 218 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 58, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia, para. 47. 219 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 16.