permitted in Costa Rica, the protection of the embryo sought by banning IVF has a very limited and moderate scope. D.4) Conclusion regarding the assessment of the severity of the interference in relation to the impact on the intended purpose 314. A weighing up of the severity of the limitation of the rights involved in this case as compared to the importance of the protection of the embryo allows it to be affirmed that the effects on the rights to personal integrity, personal liberty, private life, intimacy, reproductive autonomy, access to reproductive health services, and to found a family is severe and entails a violation of these rights because, in practice, they are annulled for those persons whose only possible treatment for infertility is IVF. In addition, the interference had a differentiated impact on the victims owing to their situation of disability, gender stereotypes and, for some of the victims, to their financial situation. 315. In contrast, the impact on the protection of prenatal life is very slight, because the risk of embryonic loss is present both in IVF and in natural pregnancy. The Court underlines that the embryo, prior to implantation, is not covered by the terms of Article 4 of the Convention, and recalls the principle of the gradual and incremental protection of prenatal life (supra para. 264). 316. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Constitutional Chamber based itself on an absolute protection of the embryo that, by failing to weigh up or take into account the other competing rights, involved an arbitrary and excessive interference in private and family life that makes this interference disproportionate. Moreover, the interference had discriminatory effects. In addition, taking into account these conclusions about the assessment and the considerations concerning Article 4(1) of the Convention (supra para. 264), the Court does not consider it pertinent to rule on the State’s argument that it has a margin of appreciation to establish prohibitions such as the one established by the Constitutional Chamber. E) Final conclusion of the merits of the case 317. Based on all the considerations in this chapter, the Court declares the violation of Articles 5(1), 7, 11(2) and 17(2), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Gretel Artavia Murillo, Miguel Mejías Carballo, Andrea Bianchi Bruno, German Alberto Moreno Valencia, Ana Cristina Castillo León, Enrique Acuña Cartín, Ileana Henchoz Bolaños, Miguel Antonio Yamuni Zeledón, Claudia María Carro Maklouf, Víctor Hugo Sanabria León, Karen Espinoza Vindas, Héctor Jiménez Acuña, Maria del Socorro Calderón P., Joaquina Arroyo Fonseca, Geovanni Antonio Vega, Carlos E. Vargas Solórzano, Julieta González Ledezma and Oriester Rojas Carranza. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 318. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 486 the Court has indicated that every violation of an international obligation which causes damage entails 486 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.”