27 and non-discrimination, States must “abstain from producing regulations that are discriminatory or have discriminatory effects on certain groups of population when exercising their rights,” that States must “combat discriminatory practices at all levels, particularly in public bodies,” and finally that States “must adopt the affirmative measures needed to ensure the effective right to equal protection for all individuals.” 107 127. Before analyzing the facts under article 24 of the American Convention, the Commission clarifies that it will not refer to the scope of the Executive Decree No. 24029-S of February 3, 1995. Said decree was not part of the allegations presented before the Commission, and was rendered without effect within the legal system of Costa Rica. The Commission will solely refer to the resulting prohibition of the Constitutional Chamber in Costa Rica of March 15, 2000. 128. In this sense, the Commission is examining a ban prohibiting access to a procedure that could have helped the victims in the case have biological children, which is what they wanted. The Commission deems that this ban had two effects that are within the scope of the right to equality: i) it prevented the victims from overcoming the disadvantage they were up against by availing themselves of the benefit of scientific progress, specifically a medical treatment, and ii) it had a very specific and disproportionate impact on women. 129. As to the first point, while the victims’ infertility cannot be blamed on the Costa Rican State, the assisted reproductive technique of in vitro fertilization was the only medical treatment that might have made it possible for them to have biological children. By denying access to this treatment, the State not only intruded into a fundamental side of the victims’ private and family life –as explained throughout this report- but also denied them the possibility of overcoming a disadvantage they had in having biological children, a disadvantage in the form of infertility. And while this disadvantage was not the State’s doing, it is to blame for the fact that the disadvantage persisted even though there were ways to overcome it or, at the least, lessen its effect. Furthermore, the ban on in vitro fertilization compounded the difficulties that infertile couples would normally have in trying to have children, since it forced them to look for alternatives abroad, with all the economic, personal, family and emotional consequences this implies. 108 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, par. 141, and Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, Series A No. 18, par. 88, cited in I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, par. 170; see also, Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, par. 44; and Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, párr. 54, cited in I/A Court H.R., Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, par. 185. 107 108 In the words of one of the victims in the case, Andrea Bianchi Bruno: For a couple like us, a husband and wife, taking out this amount of money is an economic strain; it has to be done as soon as possible, because once one has the diagnosis, time becomes a factor […] one doesn’t know how long it will take to put together that amount of money, especially if one has to do it several times. The financial stress is difficult for a couple; how many couples separate because of everyday financial stresses. Then there’s the question of the loss of privacy: all of my employers had to know that I was undergoing this treatment, because I was constantly requesting leave; I had to say I was resigning just before I was scheduled to travel, because no one is going to give me leave with just 24 hours’ notice. They could continue to monitor me for up to 24 hours before I travelled; then I had to travel to Colombia with 24 hours’ advance notice. They monitored me for five days following the procedure; then I went back to Costa Rica, where a pregnancy test was done 10 days later. After that, the pregnancy was monitored. With all this, everyone realized what was happening […] One’s privacy is completed violated; everyone knows what’s happening. And even though it is the woman who is infertile, everyone assumes the couple is infertile, too, or has been unable to have children. This was very difficult for my husband as well. He had to be there giving me constant support in things he really doesn’t understand […] I experienced social and family stress as well, since my family was suddenly divided.