sufficiently clear, from the outset, in establishing whether or not the practice of IVF was proscribed in the country, and this is revealed by the discussion that has arisen between the parties as to whether the ban is absolute or relative (supra paras. 152 to 156) or by the judgment of the Superior Court of Accounts for Contentious Administrative and Civil Proceedings of October 14, 2008, which stated that it was possible to perform IVF in the country if “a single egg was fertilized for its subsequent transfer to the mother’s uterus.” 259 161. Thus the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber implied that IVF would no longer be practiced in Costa Rica. In addition, the judgment led to the interruption of the medical treatment that some of the presumed victims in this case had begun, while others were forced to travel to other countries to be able to have access to IVF. These facts constitute an interference with the private and family life of the presumed victims, who had to modify or change their possibilities of having access to IVF, which involved a decision of the couples regarding the methods or practices that they wished to try in order to have biological children. The said judgment meant that the couples had to change their course of action with respect to a decision that they had already taken: to try to have children by means of IVF. The Court clarifies that, in this case, the interference is not related to the fact that the families could or could not have children since, even if they could have had access to the IVF technique, it is not possible to determine whether that objective could have been achieved; thus, the interference is circumscribed to the possibility of taking an autonomous decision on the type of treatments they wished to try to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court observes that some of the presumed victims indicated that one of the reasons that influenced the breakup of the marriage bond was related to the impact of the prohibition of the IVF on their possibility of having children. 260 162. Having verified that interference existed, owing both to the prohibitive effect resulting from the Constitutional Chamber’s judgment caused in general, and to the impact it had on the presumed victims in this case, the Court considers it necessary to proceed to examine whether this interference or restriction was justified. Before assessing the proportionality in that regard, the Court considers it pertinent to examine in detail the main argument developed by the Constitutional Chamber: that the American Convention makes the absolute protection of the “right to life” of the embryo compulsory and, consequently, makes it obligatory to prohibit IVF because it entails the loss of embryos. C) Interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Convention as relevant in this case Arguments of the Commission and allegations of the parties 259 Judgment No. 835-2008 delivered by the Fifth Section of the Court of Accounts for Contentious Administrative and Civil Proceedings in the case brought by Ileana Henchoz Bolaños seeking a declaratory judgment against the Costa Rican Social Security Institute, Case file No. 08-00178-1027-CA of October 14, 2008 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume V, annex XXVIII, folio 5859). 260 Cf. Written statement by Grettel Artavia Murillo (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, volume I, folio 4077) (“I wish to place on record that the State, through one of its Branches, curtailed my right to be a mother and, consequently, led to the failure of my marriage owing to the depression that both my former husband and I suffered because of [the] ban [on IVF], with the result that we decided to end our marriage, leaving an even bigger wound, and with incalculable moral damage”) and affidavit prepared by Ana Cristina Castillo León (merits report, volume V, folio 2224) (“Although it is true that a marriage may break up or be worn down for many reasons, eight years of constant hormonal treatments, visits to doctors, laboratories, pharmacies, constant financial disbursements, the exposure of our most intimate life to be judged by society, tension between ourselves because we could not resolve the problem of having children; definitively, this takes a toll on the relationship of a couple. That was my case. The great disappointment, the frustration of seeing the constitutional rights to found a family curtailed, and not having the financial resources to go to another country to seek IVF were a heavy burden for my marriage. The marriage bond ceded, divorce was imminent”).