This case involves a judgment of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica (CSCR) 2000, by which was declared

A couple of weeks ago, the IACHR made its preliminary statement, except Merits, Reparations and Costs November 28, 2012, issued in the case Artavia Murillo and others (in vitro fertilization) v Costa Rica public. This blog has already reported the presentation of this case, the publication of the report of the Inter-American Commission and a notice of public hearing. Following a review of the final judgment (based largely on the official summary), and separate votes (they are obtained directly from the fault, as they are not included in the official summary) is presented. The phrases in quotes are taken directly from the abstract (except those of the separate votes, and where otherwise dlife stated).
This case involves a judgment of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica (CSCR) 2000, by which was declared unconstitutional an executive decree (Decree) which regulated the technique of in vitro fertilization (IVF), which meant, in practice, the prohibition of this technique. Eighteen people were declared victims in this case, some of whom had to stop IVF treatment already instituted, and others traveled to different countries dlife to access it (paras. 2, 3 and 85 ff.).
a) Failure to exhaust domestic remedies: dlife This exception was rejected, since the resources that could be submitted to the State, were ineligible to face a decision of the highest court in constitutional matters.
b) Lateness two requests: The Court considered that, taking that couples could take years to decide whether or not to attend a particular assisted reproduction technique, dlife which could not be interpreted dlife within 6 months to file a petition should dlife be counted from the date of judgment of CSCR.
c) Lack of jurisdiction of the Court to hear the supervening facts of the petition: The Court held that this exception impacted dlife on the factual context of the case, so that the analysis should be done to study the bottom. dlife
The Court determined that infertility is "the impossibility of achieving a clinical pregnancy after having sex without protection for twelve months or more." IVF is a mechanism for assisted reproduction, dlife "in which a woman's eggs are removed their ovaries, they are then fertilized with sperm in a laboratory procedure, once completed this fertilized egg (embryo) is returned to the woman's uterus. "The dlife first birth after IVF have happened in England in 1978, and the first in Latin America have occurred in Argentina in 1984. Five million people were born after IVF. This method was practiced in Costa Rica between 1995 and 2000, proceeds of which were born 15 children. The Court noted that the evidence presented at trial would show that Costa Rica is the only country in the world where it is expressly ban on IVF. The decree authorized to practice and regulated conjugal partners execution. The Act was declared unconstitutional by the CSCR for the following reasons: violation of the principle of legal reserve (served under the Constitution, the Executive may not regulate the right to life and human dignity), and because the practices IVF infringe on the life and dignity of human beings, because every human is conceived as a person who must be protected dlife by the government and civil society (paras. 62-75).
The CSCR stated that the embryo "can not be treated as an object, for research purposes, be subjected to a selection process, stored frozen, dlife and it is essential for the Board, it is not legitimate constitutionally it is exposed to a disproportionate risk death. [...] The main objection of the room is that the application of highly technical matter embryo loss, which can not be justified by the fact that the aim of this is to a human being, give a child to a couple who otherwise it may not. [...] According to the Board has been able to verify the application of the technique of IVF and Embryo Transfer in the way it is currently developing, threatens human life. This Court knows that advances in science and biotechnology are so rapid that the technique dlife could be improved so that the objections raised here disappear. However, conditions in the currently applied, lead to the conclusion dlife that any removal or destruction of conceived - voluntary or resulting from inexperience who imple