16 71. The guarantee against arbitrariness is intended to ensure that any such regulation (or other action) comports with the norms and objectives of the Convention, and is reasonable under the circumstances. 59 The IACHR has observed that protection of the individual against any arbitrary interference by public officials requires that the state adopt all necessary legislation in order to ensure this provision's effectiveness.60 72. Taking account of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the IACHR has held that protection of private life encompasses a range of factors pertaining to the dignity of the individual, including, for example, the ability to pursue the development of one’s personality and aspirations, determine one’s identity, and define one’s personal relationships. 61 73. In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has expanded the content of the right to have one’s private life respected by providing that while the concept of “private life” covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person, 62 it also encompasses aspects of a person’s physical and social identity, including the right to personal autonomy, personal development and to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world.63 74. The European Court has also held that the concept of private life also includes the right to respect for decisions to become or not to become a parent 64 and even the choice to become a genetic parent. 65 Here, the European Court has described this choice as a particularly important facet of an individual’s existence or identity 66, and that where such issues are at stake the margin of appreciation accorded to a State will be restricted. 67 59 IACHR, María Elena Morales de Sierra v Guatemala, Report No. 4/01, Case 11,625, January 19, 2001, par. 47, referencing Human Rights Committee, Toonen v. Australia, Comm. No. 488/1992, par. 8.3, citing General Comment 16[32] on Article 17 (of the ICCPR), Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1 (May 19, 1989). 60 IACHR, X and Y v. Argentina, Report No. 38/96, Case 10,506, October 15, 1996, par. 91. 61 IACHR, María Elena Morales de Sierra v Guatemala, Report No. 4/01, Case 11,625, January 19, 2001, par. 46, referencing, inter alia, European Court of Human Rights, Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, Ser. A No. 169 (concerning the petitioner’s interest in accessing records related to his childhood and adolescence); and Niemetz v. Germany, Ser. A No. 251B, par. 29 (which observes that respect for private life includes the right to establish and develop both personal and professional relationships). 62 European Court of Human Rights, Pretty v. The United Kingdom, Application 2346/02, April 29, 2002, par. 61. European Court of Human Rights, Tysiac v Poland, par. 107; European Court of Human Rights, Pretty v. The United Kingdom, Application 2346/02, April 29, 2002, par. 61. 63 European Court of Human Rights, Pretty v. The United Kingdom, Application 2346/02, April 29, 2002, par. 61; European Court of Human Rights, Evans v. The United Kingdom, Application 6339/05, April 10, 2007, par. 71. 64 65 par. 78. European Court of Human Rights, Dickson v. the United Kingdom, Application 44362/04, December 4, 2007, 66 European Court of Human Rights, Dickson v The United Kingdom, Application 44362/04, December 4, 2007, par. 78. In this case, the two applicants were a Mr. and Mrs. Dickson. Mr. Dickson was in prison at the time. They alleged that the refusal of access to artificial insemination facilities violated their right to have their private and family life respected, recognized in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right to marry and start a family, recognized in article 12 of that international instrument. The Court wrote that the core issue is whether a fair balance was struck between the competing public and private interests involved. In this particular case, the Court noted that, given the circumstances, artificial insemination was the only way for the applicants to have children and that it was obvious that the matter was of vital importance to them. The Court also wrote that the policy applied in the case of the applicants did not weigh the competing public and private interests and did not assess the proportionality of the relevant restriction on prisoners. The policy also placed an inordinately high “exceptionality” burden on the applicants when requesting artificial insemination facilities. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. See, also: Amicus curiae brief presented by the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, p. 7. 67 par. 78. European Court of Human Rights, Dickson v. the United Kingdom, Application 44362/04, December 4, 2007,