292. Anyone in a situation of vulnerability is subject to special protection owing to the special duties that the State must comply with in order to satisfy the general obligation to respect and guarantee human rights. The Court recalls that it is not sufficient that the States abstain from violating rights; rather it is essential that they adopt positive measures, to be determined based on the specific needs for protection of the subject of law, either owing to his personal condition or to the specific situation in which he finds himself, 459 such as with a disability. 460 In this regard, States are obliged to facilitate the inclusion of persons with disabilities by means of equality of conditions, opportunities and participation in all spheres of society, 461 in order to guarantee that the said limitations are dismantled. Thus, the States must promote social inclusion practices and adopt measures of positive differentiation to remove the said barriers. 462 293. Based on these considerations and taking into account the definition developed by the WHO according to which infertility is a disease of the reproductive system (supra para. 288), the Court considers that infertility is a functional limitation recognized as a disease and that persons with infertility in Costa Rica, faced with the barriers created by the Constitutional Chamber’s decision, should consider that they are protected by the rights of persons with disabilities, which include the right to have access to the necessary techniques to resolve reproductive health problems. This condition requires special attention in order haves reproductive autonomy. D.2.b) Indirect discrimination in relation to gender 294. The Court considers that the ban on IVF can affect both men and women and may have differentiated disproportionate impacts owing to the existence of stereotypes and prejudices in society. 295. Regarding the situation of infertile women, expert witness Hunt explained that “in many societies infertility is attributed mainly and disproportionately to women owing to the persisting gender stereotype that defines a woman as the basic creator of the family.” Citing the conclusions of research by the WHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), he indicated that: Responsibility for infertility is usually shared by the couple […]. However, for biological and social reasons, the blame for infertility is not shared equally. In most societies, the psychological and social burden of fertility is borne especially by women. A woman’s situation is frequently identified with her fertility, and the absence of children may be seen as a social disgrace or cause for divorce. The suffering of the infertile woman can be very real.” 463 296. The Court observes that the WHO has indicated that, while the role and status of women in society should not be defined solely by their reproductive capacity, femininity is often defined by motherhood. In these situations, the personal suffering of the infertile 459 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paras. 111 and 113, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 244. 460 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lópes v. Brazil, para. 103, and Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina, para. 134. 461 Cf. Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina, para. 134. Cf. Article 5 of the Standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. 462 Cf. Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina, para. 134, and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 5, para. 13. 463 Affidavit provided by expert witness Paul Hunt (merits report, volume VI, folio 2206).