35. With respect to the right to raise a family, the State argues that, while there is a right to have children and to found a family, that right must be limited by higher values such as the right of all human beings, without distinction, to have their life protected. On this point, it declares that the principle of the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights means that some rights cannot be sacrificed for the sake of other rights. It is not legitimate to exercise that right by depriving other human beings of their life. On this point, it declares that the principle of the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights holds that some rights cannot be sacrificed for the sake of others. 36. As to the relationship between rights, the State argues that the principle implies that every right has its limits, which are determined by the rights of others. In its own interest, it declares that the right to life for embryos implies a limit on the rights of others, including couples seeking to have children and scientists seeking to experiment with embryos. 37. As to the alleged violation of privacy, the State maintains that the practice of in vitro fertilization is not a private matter, or one that implies no offense to society. It adds that, as established, the current technique of in vitro fertilization is not only contrary to public order, morals and customs, but in deed inconsistent with the right to life, which means that the State has a legitimate interest in intervening. 38. With respect to the alleged violation of judicial guaranties and protection, the State points out that constitutionality proceedings in Costa Rica (Articles 81 and 83 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Act) require notice to be published three times in the official gazette, indicating intention to file a petition. The purpose of this is to provide public notice that proceedings are to be initiated, so that persons with a legitimate interest can participate in those proceedings. 39. The State also points out that, while constitutional jurisprudence is binding, it does not tie the hands of the Chamber itself, which could eventually reverse its decision if there were sufficient grounds for doing so. Thus, the State maintains, the presumed victims identified did not have their complaints examined by domestic courts, and on these grounds it argues failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and the untimeliness of the petition, because of the late identification of the prison victims. 40. With respect to the petitioner's argument that the ruling of the Costa Rican Constitutional Chamber represents a form of violence against women, the State declares that this is an extended interpretation of the letter of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and that it strays far from the spirit of that instrument. It maintains that the petition in question does not refer to any act of violence against women, or any lack of diligence that might provoke such violence. It adds that the suffering caused to men and women by the problem of infertility has no causal link to the Costa Rican State. 41. With respect to admissibility, the State argues that the petitioner lacks standing in the case because he has failed to identify the victims individually at the proper time during the proceedings, and he did not establish the relationship between those victims and the case in question. It also maintains that the companies Costa Rica Ultrasonografia S.A. and Instituto Costarricense de Fertilidad lack legitimate standing because they are not physical persons and are therefore not protected by the American Convention. 42. The State again argues that the petition is groundless and out of order because it does not State facts that would characterize a violation of the human rights protected in the American Convention. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 1. Jurisdiction ratione personae 43. Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the IACHR's Rules of Procedure stipulate that “any person or group of persons” may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of the Convention. 5