“[A]ll these individuals sentenced to life imprisonment state that, on hearing the sentence, at first, they are unable […] to understand the scale of what has occurred. And when they do understand it, the effect is devastating; they feel that life has ended and, in many cases, they think the only thing they can do is take their own lives […] this is particularly serious owing to the period of their life during which this occurs; they are not adults who can assume absolute responsibility for their actions, but rather adolescents who are still at a formative stage, who are not yet adults; who, at that psychological moment of their development, are told by the law and the State that this is the end. [T]he effect is truly devastating”. [...]

1.La sentenza della Corte interamericana sul caso Artavia Murillo ed altri v. Costa Rica sorge a seguito della decisione della sala Costituzionale della Corte Suprema di Giustizia di Costa Rica del 25 marzo del 2000 n. 2306, che dichiara l’illegittimità costituzionale della disciplina fecondazione in vitro, contenuta nel decreto del Ministro della Salute n.24029-S del 3 febbraio 1995. La sentenza della Corte Suprema di Giustizia di Costa Rica si basa su di una pluralità di argomenti, di carattere formale e sostanziale. Innanzitutto il decreto del Ministro viola la riserva di legge prevista dalla Costituzione, che rimette al potere legislativo la disciplina e la limitazione dei diritti e delle libertà fondamentali. In secondo luogo, dal punto di vista materiale, la fecondazione in vitro è in contrasto con il diritto alla vita e con la dignità dell’essere umano. Partendo dal presupposto che l’embrione deve essere considerato come una persona, si afferma che la FIV è incompatibile con l’art. 4 della Convenzione americana dei diritti umani e con l’art. 21 della Costituzione nazionale. [...]

A world which abandons its children in the streets has no future; it no longer renders it possible to create and develop a project of life. A world which neglects its elderly has no past; it no longer participates in the heritage of humankind. A world which only knows and values the ephemerous and escaping (and thereby desperating) present inspires no faith nor hope. A world which tries to ignore the precariousness of the human condition inspires no confidence. It is a world which has already lost sight of the temporal dimension of human existence. It is a world which ignores the intergenerational perspective, that is, the duties everyone has in relation to both those who have already gone through the path of their lives (our ancestors) as well as those who are still to do so (our descendants). [...]

“In the face of the imperative of the protection of human life, and of the concerns and thoughts aroused by death, it is very difficult to separate dogmatically the considerations of juridical order from those of moral order: we are before an order of superior values, – substratum of legal norms, – which help us to seek out the meaning of the existence and of the destiny of each human being”.
(Judges A.A. Cancado Trindade and A. Abreu-Burelli)

Millions of children throughout the world live on the street. In 1989, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) estimated the number of street children worldwide to be about 100 million. Fourteen years later UNICEF reported: “The latest estimates put the numbers of these children as high as 100 million”.[...]