266. Representative Molina concurred with the Commission and added, with regard to the legality of the measure, that the Constitutional Chamber “exceeded its authority, limiting the Legislature’s exercise of its primordial function.” In addition, he argued that “the ambiguity” in the way the Constitutional Chamber formulated the prohibition “g[ave] rise to uncertainty and open[ed] the way to arbitrariness by the authorities.” He added that the purpose of the judgment was “the absolute protection [of the] right to life of human embryos,” and therefore considered it a “supposed legitimate purpose.” However, he refuted the suitability of the measure, considering the judgment “a discriminatory” and “arbitrary measure” that “failed to weigh or gauge the different convention-based rights.” Furthermore, he argued that “[t]he State chose the most harmful measure of all; the measure that completely annulled the only possibility that the couples had to achieve their private decision to become biological parents.” 267. Representative Molina argued that realization of the right to life does not justify the presumed restriction of the rights of the family, to honor and dignity, and to equality before the law. He characterized the presumed victims’ infertility as a “disability for which they had been discriminated against as regards having a family.” He also argued that ‘no benefits were obtained from the measure, while the maximum harm was caused by the prohibition, [so that] it cannot be said that the ban on IVF is a proportionate measure.” In addition, he argued that “the Constitutional Chamber’s decision […] resulted in discrimination owing to reproductive incapacity,” considering that the “judgment establishes a clear differentiation between […] couples […] who are able to conceive naturally and […] couples who can only do so by using assisted reproduction methods,” and that “[t]he discrimination made by the Chamber is evident not only in the judgment as such, but also in its effects on the individuals and couples who sought to conceive using assisted reproduction methods.” Lastly, he considered the judgment was a “form of discrimination based on their financial possibilities.” 268. Representative May argued that “[i]nfertility is a disease, a disability, and, consequently, an inability of the human being to fertilize or to conceive; in sum, an inability to procreate.” He argued that, even though “the absolute ban” on the practice of IVF “could appear to be neutral,” “it does not have the same effect on each individual, [but …] has a disproportionate impact on those who are infertile, denying them the opportunity to overcome their physical condition and to conceive biologically.” 269. The State alleged that the Commission “has not questioned the legality of the measure adopted by the Constitutional Court” and “has accepted that the restriction […] constitutes a limitation established by law and under the legal system.” It argued that “the purpose sought by the Costa Rican State when prohibiting [IVF] is legitimate, because it was intended to protect the right to life of the embryos.” It asserted that “the legitimacy of the purpose depends on how the word ‘conception’ is defined, because if it is equated to the word ‘fertilization,’ the measure adopted by the State when prohibiting [IVF] would be suitable.” Regarding the need for the measure, it argued that “the Commission bases its arguments on a false premise, which is to indicate that, in this case, the Costa Rican State could have adopted a less restrictive measure.” In this regard, it argued that “it has been shown that in the actual state of science, there is no evidence that [IVF] offers guarantees of protection of life to the unborn child fertilized in vitro.” 270. Regarding the proportionality of the measure, the State argued that “when weighing the harm that the restrictive measure causes to the holder of the freedom, and the benefit that the collectivity obtains from it by protecting society’s most fundamental value, which is the right to life, the State must necessarily incline the balance in favor of the latter.” It