10 Institute, for its part, argued that the procedure could not be performed because the Constitutional Chamber had flatly banned the procedure in its ruling No. 2000-2306 of March 15, 2000. 18 46. By a ruling dated October 14, 2008, the Superior Court of Accounts for Contentious Administrative and Civil Proceedings concluded that in vitro fertilization as an assisted reproductive technique is not banned in Costa Rica so long as none of the procedures that the Constitutional Chamber proscribes is practiced and “especially inasmuch as the current prescription for this medical procedure is to fertilize just one ovum in the female’s reproductive cycle, which shall then be transferred to the mother’s uterus.” 19 47. The Superior Court of Accounts for Contentious Administrative and Civil Proceedings ordered the Costa Rican Social Security Institute to prepare a diagnostic study and perform the necessary medical tests to determine whether assisted reproductive techniques could be performed on Mrs. Henchoz Bolaños, 20 including the in vitro fertilization techniques. It also ordered that the procedure was to be conducted according to the guidelines dictated by the Constitutional Chamber and based on the technique as it is practiced at this time: in other words, only one ovum can be fertilized and transferred in each of the patient’s reproductive cycles; two or more eggs cannot be fertilized in the same reproductive cycle, “and it is strictly prohibited to select one embryo from among several, or to destroy, dispose of or cryo-preserve embryos or experiment with them.” 21 48. The Costa Rican Social Security Institute appealed the Superior Court’s ruling. On August 19, 2009, the magistrates on the bench of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court reversed the ruling and dismissed the case. 22 The First Chamber of the Supreme Court wrote that “the plaintiff’s interests would not be served by pursuing the case.” 23 The Supreme Court reasoned that “it has been established […] that in vitro fertilization would be contraindicated for the plaintiff by reason of her age, since at age 48, she has already lost her capacity to reproduce with her own eggs, which makes an assisted pregnancy extraordinarily unlikely and remote,” in addition to the fact that the plaintiff, “once the decision now being challenged was issued, told a number of mass media outlets that she would not undergo the in vitro fertilization procedure because of her age.” 24 18 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, which both parties provided to the Commission during the hearing on the merits held on October 28, 2008. 19 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, which both parties provided to the Commission during the hearing on the merits held on October 28, 2008. 20 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, which both parties provided to the Commission during the hearing on the merits held on October 28, 2008. 21 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, which both parties provided to the Commission during the hearing on the merits held on October 28, 2008. 22 First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, judgment of May 7, 2009, Case 08-000178-1027-CA, Res. 000465-F-S1-2009, which the State forwarded via a communication dated January 22, 2010. 23 First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, judgment of May 7, 2009, Case 08-000178-1027-CA, Res. 000465-F-S1-2009, which the State forwarded via a communication dated January 22, 2010. 24 First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, judgment of May 7, 2009, Case 08-000178-1027-CA, Res. 000465-F-S1-2009, which the State forwarded via a communication dated January 22, 2010.