251. Furthermore, in the Case of S.H. et al. v. Austria, the ECHR considered permissible the ban on practicing IVF with eggs and spermatozoids donated by third parties, emphasizing that: The Austrian legislature has not completely ruled out artificial procreation. […] The legislature tried to reconcile the wish to make medically assisted procreation available and the existing unease among large sections of society as to the role and possibilities of modern reproductive medicine, which raises issues of a morally and ethically sensitive nature. 399 252. Also, in the case of Costa and Pavan v. Italy, the ECHR, in its prior considerations on European law relevant for the analysis of the case, emphasized that in “the case of Roche v. Roche and others ([2009] IESC 82 (2009)), the Supreme Court of Ireland established that the concept of the unborn child is not applicable to embryos obtained within the framework of in vitro fertilization, and the latter do not benefit from the protection provided by article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution that recognizes the right to life of the unborn child. In this case, the petitioner, who already had a son as a result of the technique of in vitro fertilization, applied to the Supreme Court in order to obtain the implantation of another three embryos obtained during the same fertilization, despite the absence of the consent of her partner from whom, in the meantime, she had separated. 400 253. Accordingly, the Court observes that the regulatory trends in international law do not lead to the conclusion that the embryo should be treated in the same way as a person, or that it has a right to life. C.3.b) IVF regulations and practice in comparative law 254. Based on the expert opinions presented by the parties at the public hearing, it was established that Costa Rica is the only country in the region that prohibits and, therefore, does not practice IVF (supra para. 67). 255. Nevertheless, from the evidence provided by the parties to the case file, the Court observes that, although IVF is performed in many countries, 401 this does not necessarily mean that it is regulated by law. In this regard, the Court notes that the comparative legislation on assisted reproduction techniques submitted by the parties (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay) reveals that there are norms that regulate some practices in this area. The Court notes that, for example: (i) human cloning is 399 Cf. ECHR, Case of S.H. et al. v. Austria (No. 57813/00), Judgment of 3 November 2011, para. 104. 400 ECHR, Case of Costa and Pavan v. Italy (No. 54270/10). Judgment of 28 August 2012, para. 33 (“33. Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that, in the case of Roche v. Roche and others ([2009] IESC 82 (2009)), the Supreme Court of Ireland established that the notion of unborn child was not applicable to embryos obtained from in vitro fertilization; thus the latter do not benefit from the protection established in article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution, which recognizes the right to life of the unborn child. In that case, the applicant, having already had one child as the result of in vitro fertilization, had seized the Supreme Court in order to obtain the implantation of three other embryos obtained in the context of the same fertilization, despite the lack of agreement of her former companion, from whom she had separated meanwhile).” The Court takes note that on November 28, 2012, the Italian Government filed a request for review of this case before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, “because the original application was filed directly before the European Court of Human Rights without previously having exhausted […] all the domestic remedies and without, of necessity, taking into consideration the margin of appreciation that each State has in the adoption of its own legislation.” Available at: http://www.governo.it/Presidenza/Comunicati/dettaglio.asp?d=69911 (last visited November 28, 2012). 401 The 2009 Report of the Registro Latinoamericano de Reproducción Asistida (RLA) indicated that, during this period, “135 centers from 11 countries reported. The majority of the centers that reported are in Brazil and Mexico, and the majority of the cycles were carried out in Brazil and Argentina.” Cf. Written summary of the expert opinion provided by Fernando Zegers-Hochschild at the public hearing before the Court (merits report, volume VI, folio 2825).