argued that, “after the ruling, the victims suffered social stigmatization that undermined their honor and social reputation.” In this regard, he argued that “[t]he disclosure in the media of the ban on IVF, and the way that infertility was characterized by some persons stigmatized the [presumed] victims and their family and violated their right to privacy. [In addition,] in their campaign against IVF, some of the media emitted offensive and denigrating messages against the plaintiffs in general, affecting their mental health.” He added that the presumed “victims of the case were judged by civil society based on the lack of information on the subject; [thus] value judgments were constantly made in the different media with a broad range of defamatory terms, aimed at denigrating the struggle undertaken by these couples.” 127. With regard to the public exposure of the presumed victims, representative May argued that “[…] the pain and suffering derived from the public exposure of the private life of the victims to society and the media persists, because it is clear that, ultimately, this is a fundamental and decisive consequence of the Constitutional Chamber’s judgment.” 128. Regarding the arguments of the representatives, the State presented a preliminary objection (supra para. 40) that these facts were not included in the brief submitting the case presented by the Commission, and were not supervening facts. It also argued that IVF “not only does not resolve the health problems of infertile persons, mainly women, but also increases the risks to their health[, inasmuch as] women can suffer from the syndrome of ovarian hyperstimulation, which in some cases can cause electrolyte imbalance, hepatic dysfunction and thrombotic phenomena that can be fatal. Other complications include bleeding, infection and adnexal torsion, which can put the mother’s life at risk.” 210 Furthermore, the State argued that “the psychological effects of IVF on women and on couples are well documented.” 211 In addition, the State argued potential damage to the children conceived with the assistance of IVF and “abnormal syndromes.” 212 The State asserted that “another problem associated with IVF technique and ovarian hyperstimulation is the generation of multiple births [which] are common in this practice,” and which imply “a danger to the health of women.” 213 129. Regarding the cryoconservation of embryos, the State argued that “to achieve adequate conservation […] cryoprotectors are used; these are chemical agents that […] exercise a certain degree of toxicity on the embryos depending on their concentration and the Ombudsman’s Office”; (v) an administrative proceeding,” and (vi) “an action on unconstitutionality against the Chamber’s decision.” 210 It assured that “[t]he mortality rate in pregnancies using [IVF] is higher than the rate of maternal mortality in the general population, [because it can] cause complications during birth and preeclampsia, as well as an increase in the risk of endometrial cancer and ovarian tumors.” 211 It indicated that, “the psychological problems reported in patients that undergo [IVF] include, above all, depression, anxiety, unresolved mourning; in addition to problems for the couple, in both their sexual relationship and life style.” 212 It argued that “in children conceived with the assistance of the [IVF] technique the risk is 2 times higher for heart septum defects, 2.4 times higher for harelip, with or without cleft palate, 4.5 times higher for esophageal atresia, 3.7 times higher for anal atresia, 9.8 times higher for gastrointestinal anomalies, and 1.54 times higher for musculoskeletal defects, in relation to children conceived naturally. In addition, […] it is more frequent to find abnormal syndromes.” Furthermore, it indicated that “other studies […] show that [IVF] could be related to an alteration of the epigenetic changes in the gametes [IVF], thus affecting overall patterns of methylation and genetic regulation, and these changes could affect genetic expression in the long-term.” 213 It argued that “if multiple pregnancies are compared to single pregnancies, twins and triplets are, respectively, four and eight times more prone to perinatal death and have a higher risk of presenting disabilities in the long term.” It indicated that an alternative for multiple births […] is a practice named “embryo reduction,” a technique “intended to cause the selective death of the embryos already implanted,” considering it a type of “provoked abortion” and thus subject to criminal sanctions.