304. In his testimony during the public hearing before this Court, Mr. Mejías Carballo declared that he and his former wife felt “very sad […] because they could not travel to another country because they did not have the resources; and they could not do it here in Costa Rica because it had been banned.” 475 In her affidavit, Grettel Artavia Murillo indicated that she and her former partner, Miguel Mejías, felt “totally desperate and tremendously frustrated, and [their] relationship began to have many problems on seeing the hopes of becoming parents curtailed, together with the impossibility of going abroad to undergo this practice owing to a lack of resources, which effectively resulted in a lessening of their individual usefulness and, thus, a net loss of [their] social well-being.” 476 Ana Cristina Castillo León explained that they “did not have the necessary financial resources to go abroad to obtain” IVF. 477 Furthermore Mr. Vargas stated that “the only alternative was to consider traveling to Spain or Colombia to undergo IVF; however, the corresponding costs had tripled for [them], and [they] simply felt defeated, discriminated against and punished by a court that had curtailed the possibility of having access to a medical treatment that was permitted in every other country in the world.” 478 D.3) Dispute regarding the alleged embryonic loss 305. As indicated previously (supra para. 76), the Constitutional Chamber justified the prohibition of IVF based on the “high loss of embryos,” their “disproportionate risk of death,” and the inadmissibility of comparing the loss of embryos in a natural pregnancy with the loss in IVF. The State considered that “to date, the [IVF] technique entails discarding, by act or omission, embryos that, otherwise, could come to term.” The Constitutional Chamber indicated that: The argument that, under natural circumstances, there are also embryos that do not become implanted or even if they achieve implantation do not develop up until birth […] is irreceivable, simply due to the fact that the application of [IVF] entails a conscious and voluntary manipulation of male and female reproductive cells in order to obtain a new human life, during which a situation is promoted in which it is known in advance that human life has no possibility of continuing in a significant percentage of cases. 479 306. In this regard, the Court observes that the Decree that the Chamber declared unconstitutional included measures of protection for the embryo, because it established the number of eggs that could be fertilized. In addition, it prohibited “discarding or eliminating embryos, or preserving them for transfer in subsequent cycles of the same patient or other patients.” In this regard, there were measures to ensure that a “disproportionate risk” for the life expectation of the embryos was not created. In addition, according to the said decree, the only possibility of loss of viable embryos was if they failed to become implanted in the woman’s uterus once the embryonic transfer had taken place. 475 go abroad to undergo the treatment but he “did not have subsist[ed] on a State pension, and everyone knows that like that; therefore [they] could not go.” Cf. Statement this case. 476 Cf. Affidavit of Grettel Artavia Murillo (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume I, folio Likewise, Mr. Mejías declared that he wanted to the money and had already spend a great deal and [he] State pensions are not sufficient to cover an expenses made by Mr. Mejías Carballo at the public hearing held in 4077) 477 Cf. Testimony of Ana Cristina Castillo León (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume I, folio 4102). 478 5280). Cf. Affidavit of Giovanni Vargas (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions briefs, volume IV, folio 479 Judgment No. 2000-02306 of March 15, 2000, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Case file No. 95-001734-007-CO (file of annexes to the merits report, volume I, folio 85).