exercising personal autonomy on the future course of relevant events for a person’s quality of life. 228 Private life includes the way in which individual views himself and how he decides to project this view towards others, 229 and is an essential condition for the free development of the personality. Furthermore, the Court has indicated that motherhood is an essential part of the free development of a woman’s personality. 230 Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the decision of whether or not to become a parent is part of the right to private life and includes, in this case, the decision of whether or not to become a mother or father in the genetic or biological sense. 231 144. The Court considers that this case addresses a particular combination of different aspects of private life that are related to the right to found a family, the right to physical and mental integrity and, specifically, the reproductive rights of the individual. 145. First, the Court emphasizes that, unlike the European Convention on Human Rights, which only protects the right to family life under Article 8 of this instrument, the American Convention contains two articles that protect family life in a complementary manner. 232 In this regard, the Court reiterates that Article 11(2) of the American Convention is closely related to the right recognized in Article 17 of this instrument. 233 Article 17 of the American Convention recognizes the central role of the family and family life in a person’s existence and in society in general. The Court has already indicated that the family’s right to protection entails, among other obligations, facilitating, in the broadest possible terms, the development and strength of the family unit. 234 This is such a basic right of the American Convention that it cannot be waived even in extreme circumstances. 235 Article 17(2) of the American Convention protects the right to found a family, which is also comprehensively 228 Cf. ECHR, Case of R.R. v. Poland, (No. 27617/04), Judgment of 26 May 2011, para. 197.. 229 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, para. 119, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 162. See also: ECHR, Case of Niemietz v. Germany (No. 13710/88), Judgment of 16 December 1992, para. 29, and Case of Peck v. United Kingdom (No. 44647/98), Judgment of 28 January 2003. Final, 28 April 2003, para. 57. 230 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 97. 231 Similarly, Cf. ECHR, Case of Evans v. United Kingdom, (No. 6339/05), Judgment of 10 April 2007, paras. 71 and 72, where the ECHR indicated that “`private life […] incorporates the right to respect for both the decisions to become and not to become a parent” and, regarding the regulation of the practice of IVF, clarified that “the right to respect for the decision to become a parent in the genetic sense, also falls within the scope of Article 8.” In the Case of Dickson v. United Kingdom (No. 44362/04), Judgment of 4 December 2007, para. 66, the Court indicated, with regard to the technique of assisted reproduction that “Article 8 is applicable to the applicants' complaints in that the refusal of artificial insemination facilities concerned their private and family lives which notions incorporate the right to respect for their decision to become genetic parents.” In the Case of S.H. and others v. Austria (No. 57813/00), Judgment of 3 November 2011, para. 82, the Court referred explicitly to the right of access to assisted reproduction techniques, such as IVF, indicating that “the right of a couple to conceive a child and to make use of medically assisted procreation for that purpose is also protected by Article 8, as such a choice is an expression of private and family life.” See also ECHR, Case of P. and S. v. Poland (No. 57375/08), Judgment of 30 October 2012, para. 96, where the ECHR indicated that, “[w]hile the Court has held that Article 8 cannot be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion, it has found that the prohibition of abortion when sought for reasons of health and/or well-being falls within the scope of the right to respect for one’s private life and accordingly of Article 8.” 232 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 175. 233 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 169. 234 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 125, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 169. See also, Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 66. 235 Cf. Article 27(2) of the American Convention establishes: “[t]he foregoing provision does not authorize any suspension of the following articles: […] 17 (Rights of the Family).”