19 88. In cases involving the right upheld in Article 11 of the Convention, the Commission has written that the State has a special obligation to prevent “arbitrary or abusive interference with this right.” 75 The Commission has held that the notion of “arbitrary interference” refers to elements of injustice, unpredictability and unreasonableness.76 89. For its part, the Inter-American Court has held that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and can be restricted by the States, provided interference is not abusive or arbitrary. For this analysis, the Court has applied the following criteria: legality, legitimate aim, suitability, necessity and proportionality. 77 90. As previously observed, the ban prohibiting access to in vitro fertilization treatment constitutes interference in the exercise of the right to private and family life and the right to found a family. This interference has to be evaluated by especially strict criteria, as it affects one of the most protected spheres of private and family life, as it is part of a realm of intimacy that can hardly be related to or affect state interests. This means that the reasons invoked to justify interference in that sphere must be particularly compelling. Accordingly, the Commission will assess whether the prohibition on in vitro fertilization is compatible with the American Convention, based on a section-bysection analysis of the following criteria: i) legality; ii) legitimate aim; iii) suitability; iv) existence of less restrictive alternatives; and v) strict proportionality. In each section, the Commission will briefly explain what the analysis consists of for each criterion. i. Legality 91. According to the Inter-American Court, when determining whether the restriction of a right recognized in the American Convention is permissible under that instrument, the first step is to examine whether it meets the legality test. This means that the conditions and general circumstances under which a restriction of a given human right is authorized must be clearly established by law. 78 The norm that establishes the restriction must be a law in the formal and substantive sense. 79 75 IACHR, X and Y v. Argentina, Report No. 38/96, Case 10,506, October 15, 1996, par. 92. 76 IACHR, X and Y v. Argentina, Report No. 38/96, Case 10,506, October 15, 1996, par. 92. See: I/A Court H.R., Escher et al. v. Brazil Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 199, párr. 129. “Since the telephone conversations of the alleged victims were private and they had not authorized that their conversations be conveyed to third parties, the interception of the conversations by State agents constituted interference in their private life. Therefore, the Court must examine whether this interference was arbitrary or abusive in the terms of Article 11(2) of the Convention or whether it was compatible with the said treaty. As indicated previously (supra para. 116), to conform to the American Convention any interference must comply with the following requirements: (a) it must be established by law; (b) it must have a legitimate purpose, and (c) it must be appropriate, necessary and proportionate. Consequently, the absence of any of these requirements implies that the interference is contrary to the Convention”. See also. I/A Court H.R., Tristán-Donoso v. Panama Case. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para 76. 78 Article 30 of the American Convention reads as follows: 77 The restrictions that, pursuant to this Convention, may be placed on the enjoyment or exercise of the rights or freedoms recognized herein may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established. 79 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, par. 130; I/A Court H.R., The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A. No. 6, paragraphs 27 and 32; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, par. 77.