the alleged violation of the treaty-based rights of the presumed victims in light of a determination of proportionality (D). A) Scope of the rights to personal integrity, 220 personal liberty, 221 and private and family life 222 in this case Arguments of the Commission and allegations of the parties 137. The Commission observed that “the decision […] to have biological children […] belongs to the most intimate sphere of private and family life, [and …] the way in which couples arrive at this decision is part of a person’s autonomy and identity, both as an individual and as a partner.” It indicated that “living together and the possibility of procreating is part of the right to found a family.” It considered that “[t]he use of IVF to combat infertility is also closely related to the enjoyment of the benefits of scientific progress.” 138. Representative Molina argued that “the couple’s decision on whether or not to have children occurs in the private sphere,” and described the infertility of the presumed victims as a “disability owing to which they have been discriminated against as regards having a family.” 139. Representative May argued that the regulation [of IVF] should “develop and facilitate the content of the rights to health, access to scientific progress, respect for privacy and autonomy in the family sphere, the right to found a family and the full exercise of the reproductive rights of the individual.” 140. The State argued that “the possibility of procreating by means of in vitro fertilization techniques […] is not a right recognized in the context of personal liberty,” and that “[e]ven though the right to found a family includes the possibility of procreating, the State should not permit this possibility at any cost.” Furthermore, it argued that “[h]uman life and dignity does not need to prove its nature in the face of the demands of scientific or medical progress.” Considerations of the Court 141. As indicated previously (supra para. 3), the Commission considered that the prohibition of IVF violated Articles 11(2), 17(2) and 24, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the presumed victims. The common interveners 220 The pertinent part of Article 5 of the American Convention (Right to Humane Treatment) indicates: 1. 221 The pertinent part of Article 7 of the American Convention (Right to Personal Liberty) indicates: 1. 222 Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. […] Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. The pertinent part of Article 11 of the American Convention (Right to Privacy) states: […] 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. […]. The pertinent part of Article 17 of the American Convention (Rights of the Family), indicates: 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state. 2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to raise a family shall be recognized, if they meet the conditions required by domestic laws, insofar as such conditions do not affect the principle of nondiscrimination established in this Convention.