reproductive difficulties. Its ban had a greater impact on the life plans of the couples whose only option to procreate was IVF, as in the case of Mr. Mejías and Ms. Calderón Porras. In this context, Ms. Arroyo Fonseca, who had attempted several inseminations and who subsequently was able to have children, indicated that, at the time, she “was unable to overcome [her] infertility problems with an assisted reproduction technique that [at that time] would have allowed [her] to have more children.” 434 282. Third, the psychological integrity of the individual is harmed by denying him or her the possibility of acceding to a procedure that makes it possible to exercise the desired reproductive freedom. In this regard, one of the victims stated that, following the prohibition, he and his partner, “became extremely depressed; she cried all the time, she shut herself up in her room and refused to come out; she continually reminded [him] of the desire to have [their] own child, of the names [they] had chosen […]. [They] also underwent unpleasant experiences; for example, [they] stopped going to church because each Sunday it was painful to go to mass and to hear the priest refer to those who wanted [IVF] as people who killed children and that God rejected and abominated those children […]. [They] did not go back to any church and [they] felt abandoned by God himself.” 435 283. Meanwhile, Ms. Carro Maklouf stated that she “felt indescribable interference in [her] private life” and stressed that, her other children, “also wanted to have a baby brother or sister, because they were adults, and the matter had become a family project; they also suffered with [her] all the pain caused by the Constitutional Chamber’s decision. 436 For her part, Andrea Bianchi Bruna explained that when IVF, as her “final option, […] had been banned, [… she] felt a whirlwind of pain and incredulity in [her] mind.” Ms. Artavia Murillo testified that the State’s decision “led to the failure of [her] marriage owing to the depressions that both [her] former husband and [she], suffered because of this ban [on in vitro fertilization], so [they] decided it was better to end the relationship, leaving an even greater wound, and with incalculable moral damage.” 437 284. Thus, for the said reasons, the couples suffered a severe interference in relation to their decision-making concerning the methods or practices they wished to attempt in order to procreate a biological child. However, differentiated impacts also existed in relation to the situation of disability, gender and financial situation, aspects related to the factors alleged by the parties regarding possible indirect indiscrimination in the instant case. D.2) Severity of the interference as a result of indirect discrimination owing to the disproportionate impact in relation to disability, gender and financial situation 285. The Inter-American Court has indicated repeatedly that the American Convention does not prohibit all differentiation in treatment. The Court has signaled the difference between “differentiation” and “discrimination,” 438 so that the former are differences that are 434 Affidavit of Joaquinita Arroyo Fonseca (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume IV, annex XI, folio 5266). 435 Affidavit (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume IV, annex XXI, folio 5620). 436 Cf. Affidavit of Claudia María Carro Maklouf, “Life story” (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume I, folio 4140). 437 Brief of Ms. Artavia and Mr. Mejías of December 19, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume I, folio 4077). 438 Regarding the concept of “discrimination,” although neither the American Convention nor the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights include a definition of this term, the Commission, the Court and the United Nations Human Rights Committee have taken as a basis the definitions contained in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in order to maintain that discrimination constitutes “any distinction,