This commentary uses the case Artavia-Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica as a starting point for analyzing the decision-making process of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Artavia case refers to the Costa Rican ban on in vitro fertilization and to some other life-related issues. This case reveals, in a strikingly clear fashion, certain features of the argumentative processes of the Court of the Americas. Some of these features are this court’s extra-Convention jurisdiction, its maximalist approach to decision-making, its use of non-binding instruments as a means for adjudicating, its evolutive interpretation of the Convention without objective parameters, its lack of deference toward domestic interpretation of rights, and its hispanocentrism. This commentary concludes that some of these features may undermine the Inter-American Court’s prestige.