152. The Commission described the result of the Constitutional Chamber’s decision as a “prohibition” of IVF of an “absolute” nature, which constitutes “a restriction of the right to found a family according to the decision of the couple.” The Commission also argued that, “inasmuch as [IVF] is a means to realize a decision protected by the American Convention, the prohibition of access to the technique necessarily constitutes an interference or restriction to the exercise of the treaty-based rights. 153. Representative Molina characterized the result of the Constitutional Chamber’s judgment as an “absolute” and “continued prohibition” of IVF, because “it not only resulted in interference or an abusive and arbitrary invasion of the autonomy and privacy of the [presumed] victims in the case, but also constituted an absolute annulment of the right to decide to have biological children.” 154. Representative May argued that “[t]he prohibition of [IVF] perpetuates a situation of physical inability to enjoy bodily health fully, which can be rectified by modern science” and, therefore, “it is also a form of physical abuse against sterile couples because it limits their possibility of overcoming their condition of disease or infirmity.” He added that “[t]he prohibition of the practice [of IVF …] is a real restriction of the full exercise of the natural functions of women and men.” 155. The State argued that the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber did not result in a “prohibition” of IVF as such, because the judgment “did not annul definitively the possibility of practicing in vitro fertilization in Costa Rica, [but] only banned a specific technique that had existed since 1995, regulated by the Executive Decree.” It added that “fertilization methods that endanger” “the right to life from the moment of conception cannot be practiced”; but, “when the State considers that a certain technique is compatible with those parameters, it may permit and regulate it.” The State argued that “it should be considered a disputed fact that the presumed victims truly formed part of a waiting list to undergo the procedure” of IVF “in 2000 when the prohibition was announced”; particularly because “many of the couples were not diagnosed with infertility until a long time after the proceedings before the Commission had started and other were still undergoing insemination procedures at that time.” 156. Furthermore, the State argued that the judgment “does not prohibit IVF in general, but refers exclusively to the technique that was used at that time, in which it is known that, in a considerable percentage of the cases, human life had no possibility of continuing.” Regarding the possibility of practicing IVF nowadays, the State indicated that “[t]o date science does not offer an in vitro technique that is compatible with the right to life protected in Costa Rica; proof of this is that, when the report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was issued, an attempt was made to regulate the matter and a bill was submitted to the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica that regulated this technique, but also protected the right to life from conception, as this has been understood in Costa Rica. In this regard, the bill prohibited the freezing of embryos and required all the fertilized eggs to be implanted without the possibility of making a selection.” It added that this is why “any technique that is attempted in Costa Rica, protecting life from conception, would be medically non-viable at present, 12 years after the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber.” Considerations of the Court 157. The Court notes that the Constitutional Chamber declared unconstitutional and annulled the Executive Decree that authorized the practice of IVF (supra para. 72). Both the two representatives and the Inter-American Commission have described the decision as an “absolute prohibition” that does not allow this technique to be applied for any reason, while