23 limitations that such protection places on the rights of others. 92 In effect, German law allows the technique of in vitro fertilization while prohibiting the destruction of embryos. 93 109. The Constitution of Ireland provides constitutional protection to the unborn and in vitro fertilization is permitted in the country. While there is no specific regulation on this subject, medical practice in this area is governed by Irish Medical Council Guidelines. 94 110. The Commission therefore concludes that there were less restrictive ways to accomplish the State’s objective and to reconcile the interests at stake, for example, through some other form of regulation that could produce results that more closely resemble the natural process of conception, such as a regulation that diminishes the number of fertilized ovules. When the regulation of in vitro fertilization was challenged in Costa Rica’s Constitutional Chamber, the latter deemed it insufficient. But the State should have examined other forms of regulation to reconcile all the competing interests. According to the information available to the Commission, the Constitutional Chamber did not consider other alternatives to protect life and at the same time respect the rights of infertile couples. 111. In conclusion, the Commission deems that the outright ban on the practice of in vitro fertilization fails to comply with this aspect of the test; hence, the ban constituted arbitrary interference and a restriction incompatible with the American Convention on the exercise of the right to a private and family life and the right to found a family, recognized in articles 11 and 17 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 112. The foregoing conclusion notwithstanding and given the nature of the interests at stake, some observations are in order with regard to the requirement of proportionality stricto sensu. For the proportionality test, the sacrifice of the right that the State measure restricted or interfered with, has to be weighed against the benefits gained by accomplishing the end sought. 113. For the victims who suffer from infertility conditions that make any other assisted reproductive technique unviable, the ban on in vitro fertilization represented a complete suppression of their personal identity and individual free will to decide to have biological children and control their own reproductive capacity; in other words, the possibility of developing their life plan. 114. While the inability to have biological children comes as a shock and a disappointment when one decides to have a family, it continues to exact its toll throughout every stage of life. The statement that one of the alleged victims made to the Commission captures how the ban on in vitro fertilization –which was the only technique by which she could have had biological children- took its toll on various areas of her life –the harm to her health, the intrusion into her privacy, the frustration of her desire to have biological children. In the words of Andrea Bianchi Bruno: 95 [t]he first thing I felt was that my right to health had been severely, completely and utterly violated. I was left with no other treatment option; I was being unequivocally denied the only treatment option available to me […] 92 For example, Article 42 of the Constitution of Colombia states, inter alia: “children born in wedlock or out of wedlock, adopted, procreated naturally or with scientific assistance, have the same rights and duties.” See, in general, Amicus curiae brief presented by the Yale University Law School’s Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, p. 19. 93 94 German embryo protection law, issued in 1991. See, Report of the Commission http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/cahr.pdf?direct=1 95 on Human Hearing that the Commission held on the case on October 28, 2008. Reproduction, available online at: