The Execution of the Ruling on In Vitro Fertilization Against Costa Rica: a Jurisprudential Challenge for the Inter-American Human Rights System

Abstract

In Artavia Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica (“in vitro fertilization” case), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights struck down the Costa Rican ban on artificial reproduction and ordered public funding of in vitro fertilization (IVF) through its Social Security system. During the procedure by which the court supervises compliance with the judgment, the Inter-American Court intervened directly in the national legal system by nullifying a ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court that had invalidated an executive decree issued by the President, and conditioned the authorization and regulation of IVF to the approval of an Act by the Legislature. This extraordinary intervention in a national legal system by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights raises jurisprudential questions on the execution of its judgments at the national level, as well as on the court’s scope of authority during monitoring of compliance procedures, particularly in cases where a norm may, as in this case, imply morally controversial issues, political polarization at the domestic level and clear partiality on the part of the Court in favor of the Executive, as described in this article.