Wikipedia

Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile: Perbedaan antara revisi

Jelajahi riwayat secara interaktif
← Revisi sebelumnya
Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
VisualTeks wiki
k →top: clean up, added orphan tag
 
(Satu revisi perantara oleh satu pengguna lainnya tidak ditampilkan)
Baris 1:
{{Orphan|date=Januari 2023}}
{{Wikifikasi}}
 
{{kembangkan}}
 
'''''Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile''''' (bahasa Indonesia: '''''Atala Riffo dan Puteri - Puterinya vs Chili''''' ) adalah kasus pelanggaran [[hak asasi manusia]] yang dialami oleh Karen Atala Riffo, berupa pencabutan [[hak asuh anak]] atas ketiga puterinya oleh [[Mahkamah Agung Chili]] karena [[orientasi seksual]] [[lesbian]] yang dimilikinya. Kasus ini menjadi kasus pertama bagi [[Inter-American Court of Human Rights]] menangani perkara pemenuhan hak - hak [[LGBT]] sebagai bagian dari hak asasi manusia.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Atala Riffo and Daughters v Chile|url=https://iachr.lls.edu/cases/atala-riffo-and-daughters-v-chile}}</ref>
{{Infobox court case
|name = Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile
Baris 16 ⟶ 17:
|judges = Diego García Sayán (Ketua);
 
Manuel E. Ventura Roble (Wakil Ketua);
 
Leonardo A. Franco;
Baris 36 ⟶ 37:
|italic title = yes
}}
 
'''''Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile''''' (bahasa Indonesia: '''''Atala Riffo dan Puteri - Puterinya vs Chili''''' ) adalah kasus pelanggaran [[hak asasi manusia]] yang dialami oleh Karen Atala Riffo, berupa pencabutan [[hak asuh anak]] atas ketiga puterinya oleh [[Mahkamah Agung Chili]] karena [[orientasi seksual]] [[lesbian]] yang dimilikinya. Kasus ini menjadi kasus pertama bagi [[Inter-American Court of Human Rights]] menangani perkara pemenuhan hak - hak [[LGBT]] sebagai bagian dari hak asasi manusia.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Atala Riffo and Daughters v Chile|url=https://iachr.lls.edu/cases/atala-riffo-and-daughters-v-chile}}</ref>
 
Karen Atala Riffo adalah jaksa berkewarganegaraan [[Chili]], yang juga adalah seorang ibu [[lesbian]] dari tiga orang puteri. Atala bercerai dari suaminya pada 2001, dan kemudian mendapatkan hak asuh atas tiga puterinya, melalui kesepakatan dengan mantan suaminya.
 
Ketika Atala Riffo menyatakan diri sebagai [[lesbian]] pada 2005, mantan suaminya mengajukan gugatan hak asuh anak atas tiga puteri mereka, yang akhirnya dikabulkan oleh [[Mahkamah Agung Chili]]. Mahkamah memberikan hak asuh anak kepada mantan suami Atala, atas pertimbangan bahwa [[orientasi seksual]] Atala Riffo akan membahayakan pertumbuhkembangan ketiga puterinya.
 
[[Inter-American Court of Human Rights]] menyatakan bahwa [[Mahkamah Agung Chili]] telah melanggar [[Konvensi Amerika tentang Hak Asasi Manusia]].
 
==Kronologi Referensi ==
{{reflist}}
Pada 17 September 2010, ''[[Inter-American Commission on Human Rights]]'' menggugat pemerintah [[Chili|Republik Chili]] berkenaan dengan kasus 12.5023.
 
Petisi awal tentang kasus tersebut telah diajukan di hadapan ''[[Inter-American Commission on Human Rights]]'' pada 24 November 2004 oleh Karen Atala Riffo, dengan diwakilkan oleh jaksa -jaksa dari ''[[Asociación Gremial Libertades Públicas]]'', ''[[Clinica de Acciones de Interés Público]]'' dari [[Universitas Diego Portales]], dan ''[[Fundación Ideas]]''.
 
Pada 23 Juli 2008, Pengadilan menyetujui [[Laporan Admisibilitas]] No. 42/08, dan pada 18 Desember 2009 menyetujui Report on Merits No. 139/09, sesuai dengan artikel 50 dari Konvensi Amerika tentang Hak Asasi Manusia.
 
Pada 17 September 2010, Pengadilan menganggap bahwa Chili tidak mematuhi rekomendasi yang dimuat Merits Report. Dengan alasan itu, Pengadilan memutuskan untuk mengalihkan penanganan kasus tersebut ke yurisdiksi [[Inter-American Court of Human Rights|Pengadilan Inter - American Court of Human Rights]]. Komisi Intra Amerika menunjuk [[Komisioner]] Luz Patricia Mejía dan Sekretaris Eksekutif Santiago A. Canton sebagai delegasinya dalam kasus ini. Sementara Asisten Sekretaris Eksekutif Elizabeth Abi Mershed, Jaksa Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Jaksa Rosa Celorio, dan María Claudia Pulido, Tenaga Ahli di Sekretariat Eksekutif, ditugaskan sebagai penasihat hukum.
 
Menurut Komisi, kasus ini melibatkan dugaan tanggungjawab internasional negara terhadap perlakuan diskriminatif dan interferensi arbitrer dalam kehidupan pribadi dan keluarga yang dialami oleh Atala, yang diakibatkan oleh orientasi seksualnya, yang dalam proses hukum mengakibatkan hilangnya perhatian dan hak asuh atas ketiga puterinya, yaitu M, V, dan R.
 
Kasus ini juga melibatkan dugaan kesalahan untuk mempertimbangkan kepentingan terbaik puteri - puteri Atala, yang hak asuh dan perawatan mereka ditentukan dengan tidak memenuhi hak - hak mereka, melainkan berdasarkan prasangka yang diduga diskriminatif.
 
Komisi meminta Pengadilan untuk mendeklarasikan kasus ini sebagai pelanggaran terhadap Artikel 11 (Hak atas Privasi), Artikel 17(1) dan 17(4) (Hak - hak Keluarga), Artikel 19 (Hak - hak Anak), Artikel 24 (Hak atas Perlindungan yang Setara), dan Artikel 25 (Hak atas Perlindungan Yudisial) dari Konvensi Amerika tentang Hak Asasi Manusia.
 
Komisi juga meminta Pengadilan untuk memerintahkan Chili mengambil tindakan - tindakan ganti rugi terhadap kasus INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
 
CASE OF ATALA RIFFO AND DAUGHTERS v. CHILE
 
JUDGMENT OF FEBRUARY 24, 2012
 
(Merits, Reparations and Costs)
 
In the case of Atala Riffo and daughters,
 
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Inter-American Court” or the
 
“Court”) composed of the following judges1
 
<nowiki>:</nowiki>
 
Diego García-Sayán, President;
 
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Vice-President;
 
Leonardo A. Franco, Judge;
 
Margarette May Macaulay, Judge;
 
Rhadys Abreu-Blondet, Judge;
 
Alberto Pérez Pérez, Judge;
 
Also present:
 
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary and,
 
Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary;
 
Pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights
 
(hereinafter, the “Convention” or the “American Convention”) and Articles 31, 32, 56, 57,
 
65 and 67 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure2 (hereinafter, the “Rules of Procedure”) delivers
 
this Judgment.
 
1 According to Article 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, applicable to this case
 
(infra note 2), which sets forth that “[i]n the cases referred to in Article 44 of the Convention, a Judge who is a
 
national of the respondent State shall not be able to participate in the hearing and deliberation of the case”, Judge
 
Vio Grossi, of Chilean nationality, did not participate in the processing of this case nor in the deliberation of this
 
Judgment.
 
2 The Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its Eighty-fifth Regular Period of Sessions held on
 
November 16-28, 2009, apply in this case in accordance with the provisions of Article 79 of said Rules of
 
Procedure. Article 79(2) of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that“[i]n cases in which the Commission has adopted a
 
report under Article 50 of the Convention before these Rules of Procedure have come into force, the presentation of
 
the case before the Court will be governed by Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure previously in force.
 
Statements shall be received with the aid of the Victim’s Legal Assistance Fund, and the dispositions of these Rules
 
of Procedure shall apply”. Therefore, as to the presentation of the case, Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of
 
Procedure approved by the Court at its Forty-ninth Regular Session, shall apply..
 
2
 
I. INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION 4
 
II. PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 5
 
III. COMPETENCE 8
 
IV. EVIDENCE 8
 
A. Documentary, Testimonial and Expert Evidence 9
 
B. Admission of Documentary Evidence 11
 
C. Admission of testimonial and expert evidence 12
 
V. RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION, RIGHT TO PRIVATE LIFE,
 
RIGHT TO FAMILY LIFE, RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO
 
JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND
 
GUARANTEE RIGHTS REGARDING THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING 13
 
A. Proven facts in relation to the custody proceedings 13
 
1) Custody proceedings 14
 
2) Provisional custody granted to the father 17
 
3) Lower court decision granting custody of the girls to Ms. Atala 18
 
4) Appeal to the Court of Appeals of Temuco and injunction granted in
 
favor of the father 20
 
5) Filing of remedy of complaint (recurso de queja) with the Supreme
 
Court of Justice and granting of second injunction in favor of the father 21
 
6) Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile 21
 
B. Prior considerations 23
 
1. Prior consideration on the matter of the case before the Inter-
 
American Court 23
 
2. Prior consideration on the participation of the girls M., V. and R. 25
 
C. The right to equality and the prohibition of discrimination 26
 
1. Right to equality and non-discrimination 28
 
2. Sexual orientation as a category protected by Article 1(1) of the
 
American Convention 29
 
3. Difference in treatment based on sexual orientation 35
 
4. The principle of the child’s best interest and assumptions of risk 37
 
4.1. Alleged social discrimination 40
 
4.2. Alleged confusion of sexual roles 42
 
4.3. Alleged privilege of interests 46
 
4.4. Right to a “normal and traditional” family 49
 
4.5 Conclusion 50
 
5. Discriminatory treatment against the girls M., V. and R. 50
 
D. Right to private life and right to family life 52
 
E. Judicial guarantees and judicial protection 58
 
1. Judicial guarantees and judicial protection regarding Ms. Atala 583
 
2. Right of the girls M., V., and R. to be heard and to have their opinions
 
be taken into consideration 62
 
VI. RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND THE PROHIBITION OF NON-DISCRIMINATION,
 
RIGHT TO A PRIVATE LIFE AND RIGHT TO JUDICAL GUARANTEES
 
IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS IN
 
RELATION TO THE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION 66
 
A. Facts proven regarding the disciplinary investigation against
 
Ms. Atala 67
 
B. The right to equality and the prohibition of non-discrimination 68
 
C. Right to private life 70
 
D. Judicial guarantees 71
 
VII. REPARATIONS 73
 
A. Injured Party 74
 
B. Obligation to investigate and enforce legal consequences for the
 
officials responsible 75
 
C. Other measures of full redress: satisfaction and guarantees of
 
non-repetition 76
 
1. Rehabilitation: Medical and psychological treatment for the victim 76
 
2. Satisfaction 76
 
a) Publication of the Judgment 76
 
b) Public act acknowledging international liability 77
 
3. Guarantees of non-repetition 78
 
a. Training for public officials 79
 
b. Adoption of domestic measures, reforms, and adaptation of
 
laws against discrimination 79
 
D) Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages 82
 
1. Pecuniary damage 83
 
2. Non-pecuniary damages 85
 
E) Costs and expenses 86
 
F) Method of compliance with the payments ordered 87
 
VIII. OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 88
 
Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez informed the Court his Partially Dissenting Opinion
 
4
 
I.
 
INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION
 
1. On September 17, 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
 
(hereinafter, the “Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) filed a claim against
 
the Republic of Chile (hereinafter, the “State” or “Chile") in relation to case 12.5023
 
. The
 
initial petition was lodged before the Inter-American Commission on November 24, 2004 by
 
Ms. Karen Atala Riffo, (hereinafter “Ms. Atala”) represented by attorneys of the Asociación
 
Gremial Libertades Públicas, Clinica de Acciones de Interés Público of Diego Portales
 
University and Fundación Ideas4
 
.
 
2. On July 23, 2008, the Commission approved Report on Admissibility No. 42/08 and
 
on December 18, 2009, it approved the Report on Merits No. 139/09, according to article 50
 
of the American Convention5
 
. On September 17, 2010, the Inter-American Commission
 
considered that the State had not complied with the recommendations made in the Merits
 
Report, for which reason it decided to submit the instant case to the jurisdiction of the
 
Inter-American Court. The Inter-American Commission appointed Commissioner Luz Patricia
 
Mejía, and Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton as its delegates in this case. Assistant
 
Executive Secretary Elizabeth Abi-Mershed and attorneys Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Rosa
 
Celorio and María Claudia Pulido, Specialists of the Executive Secretariat of the Commission,
 
were designated to act as legal advisors.
 
3. According to the Commission, the present case concerns the alleged international
 
responsibility of the State for discriminatory treatment and arbitrary interference in the
 
private and family life suffered by Ms. Atala due to her sexual orientation, in the legal
 
process that resulted in the loss of care and custody of her daughters M., V and R. The case
 
also concerns the alleged failure to take into account the best interests of the girls, whose
 
custody and care were determined without having regard to their rights, and on the basis of
 
alleged discriminatory prejudices. The Commission requested the Court to declare the
 
violation of Articles 11 (Right to Privacy), 17(1) and 17(4) (Rights of the Family), 19 (Rights
 
of the Child), 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the
 
Convention, in relation to article 1(1) thereof. Likewise, the Commission requested the
 
Court to order the State to adopt reparation measures.
 
3 At the request of the Inter-American Commission, the identity of the three daughters of Ms. Karen Atala
 
Riffo, shall not be disclosed. Such daughters shall be referred to as “M., V. and R.”. Moreover, at the request of the
 
representatives, in order to protect the right to private and family life of M., V. and R., the affidavits forwarded by
 
the parties and "related to the family situation" of Ms. Atala and her daughters shall not be disclosed. (Case file,
 
volume III, page 1162)
 
4 In the initial petition, Ms. Atala indicated that Fundación Ideas was represented by Francisco Estévez
 
Valencia and she appointed Verónica Undurraga Valdés, Claudio Moraga Klenner, Felipe González Morales and
 
Domingo Lovera Parmo as her representatives before the Inter-American Commission (File of appendices to the
 
petition, volume III, pages 1533 and 1572).
 
5 In Merits Report No. 139/09, the Commission concluded that the State of Chile “did violate the right of
 
Karen Atala to live free from discrimination as provided in Article 24 of the American Convention, in conjunction
 
with Article 1(1) thereof.” Moreover, “the State also violated Articles 11(2), 17(4), 19, 8(1), and 25(1) of the
 
American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, with respect to the individuals identified in the
 
corresponding sections”. The Commission recommended that the State of Chile: i) "[p]rovide Karen Atala and M.,
 
V., and R. with comprehensive redress for the human rights violations that arose from the decision […] taking into
 
consideration their situation and needs” and ii) [a]dopt legislation, public policies, programs and initiatives to
 
prohibit and eradicate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation from all spheres of public power, including
 
the administration of justice. These measures must be accompanied by adequate human and financial resources to
 
guarantee their implementation, and training/re-education programs for the public officials involved in upholding
 
those rights”. Merits Report No.139/09, Case 12.502, Karen Atala and daughters of December 18, 2009 (File of
 
appendices to the application, volume I, annex 2, pages 22 to 67).
 
5
 
4. The application was notified to the State and to the representatives on October 19,
 
2010.
 
5. On December 25, 2010, Macarena Sáez, Helena Olea and Jorge Contesse, indicating
 
that they were the representatives of Ms. Atala and her daughters M., V. and R6
 
(hereinafter, the “representatives”) filed a brief with the Court containing pleadings,
 
motions and evidence (hereinafter, “brief of pleadings and motions”) according to article 40
 
of the Court's Rules of Procedure7
 
. The representatives indicated that they agreed in full
 
with the facts presented in the application and asked the Court to declare the international
 
responsibility of the State for the violation of articles 11 (Right to Private and Family Life),
 
17 (Right to a Family), 19 (Rights of the Child), 24 (Right to Equality) and 25 (Judicial
 
Protection) of the Convention, in relation to article 1(1) thereof. In consequence, they
 
requested that the Court order several reparation measures.
 
6. On March 11, 2011, Chile filed with the Court a brief containing its response to the
 
application and the observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter, “brief of
 
response”). In said brief, the State contested all the claims presented by the Commission
 
and the representatives and denied its international responsibility for the alleged violations
 
of the American Convention. In relation to the measures of reparation requested by the
 
Commission and the representatives, the State requested that the Court dismiss the claim
 
in its entirety. The State appointed Mr. Miguel Angel González and Ms. Paulina González
 
Vergara as Agents.
 
II
 
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT
 
7. Through a Decision issued on July 7, 20118
 
, the President of the Court ordered the
 
receipt of various statements in this case. Likewise, he summoned the parties to a public
 
hearing, which was held on August 23 and 24, 2011, during the 92nd regular session of the
 
Court, in the city of Bogota, Colombia9
 
.
 
6 As mentioned subsequently (infra paras. 12, 13 and 67 to 71), regarding the representation of the girls
 
M., V. and R., in the Decision of November 29, 2011 the Court noted that the file contained no specific statements
 
by the girls M., V. and R. as to whether they agreed to be represented by either one of their parents and whether
 
they wished to be considered as alleged victims in this case. Accordingly, a judicial proceeding was held to directly
 
hear the daughters M. and R (infra para. 13).
 
7 Ms. Karen Atala Riffo appointed Macarena Sáez from the organization “Libertades Públicas A.G”, Helena
 
Olea from “Corporación Humanas, Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos y Justicia de Género” and Jorge Contesse
 
from “Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Diego Portales”, as her representatives.
 
8 See Case of Atala Riffo and daughters V. Chile. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of
 
Human Rights of July 7, 2011. Available at: <nowiki>http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/atala_21_08_11.pdf</nowiki>
 
The representatives requested a modification in the format of two statements, which was accepted by the full
 
Court. See Case of Atala Riffo and daughters V. Chile. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of
 
August 21, 2011.Available at: <nowiki>http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/atala_21_08_11.pdf</nowiki>
 
9 The following persons attended this hearing: a) on behalf of the Inter-American Commission:
 
Commissioner Rodrigo Escobar Gil and legal advisors Silvia Serrano and Rosa Celorio; b) on behalf of the
 
representatives: Helena Olea Rodríguez, Macarena Sáez Torres, Jorge Contesse Singh, José Ignacio Escobar Opazo,
 
Francisco Cox Vial and Catalina Lagos Tschorne, and c) on behalf of the State: Agents Miguel Ángel González
 
Morales and Paulina González Vergara; Gustavo Ayares Ossandón, Ambassador of Chile to Colombia; Ricardo
 
Hernández Menéndez, Adviser of the Chilean Embassy in Colombia;; Milenko Bertrand-Galindo Arriagada, Felipe
 
Bravo Allende and Alberto Vergara Arteaga.
 
6
 
8. On August 18, September 6 and October 18, 2011, Mr. Reinaldo Bustamante Alarcón
 
forwarded several communications on behalf of Jaime López Allendes, father of the girls M.,
 
V. and R., in relation to this case. In said briefs, the following requests were made: i)
 
participation of the minors and legal representation by their father in the proceeding before
 
the Inter-American Court; ii) request to include an intervener in the proceeding; iii) request
 
to annul the proceedings before the Commission and the Court and iv) request to
 
collaborate with the State’s brief.
 
9. On November 30, 2011, the Secretariat sent a note to Mr. Bustamante, following the
 
instructions of the full Court, in reply to the briefs submitted (supra para. 8). The note
 
indicated that: i) in a Decision issued on November 29, 2011 the Court ordered, as evidence
 
to facilitate adjudication of the case, that the three girls must be informed of their right to
 
be personally heard by the Court (infra paras. 12 and 13); ii) the Court is not competent to
 
address requests made by individuals or organizations other than the alleged victims
 
participating in the proceedings of a case before the Court; iii) the Court does not find
 
irregularities in the manner in which notice of this case was served and iv) given that Mr.
 
López is not a party to this case and that his participation as a third intervener has not been
 
accepted, he does not have legal standing to present arguments as to the merits or
 
evidence10.
 
10. Furthermore, the Court received the amici curiae briefs from: 1) the National
 
Association of Judges of Chile [Asociación Nacional de Magistrados del Poder Judicial de
 
Chile]11; 2) the Ombudsgay organization12; 3) Mr. José Pedro Silva Prado, a professor of
 
Procedural Law and President of the Chilean Institute of Procedural Law; 4) Mr. José Ignacio
 
Martínez Estay, a professor of the Jean Monnet Program, an initiative of the European
 
Union, of the University of Los Andes, Chile; 5) the Human Rights Group [Nucleo Derechos
 
Humanos] of the Law Department of the Pontificia Universidad Católica of Río de Janeiro13;
 
6) Mr. Diego Freedman, a professor at the School of Law of the University of Buenos Aires;
 
7) Ms. María Inés Franck, President of Asociación Civil Nueva Política and Mr. Jorge Nicolás
 
Lafferriere, Director of Centro de Bioética, Persona and Familia; 8) the Research Seminary
 
on Family and Individual Law, of the Law School of the Pontificia Universidad Católica of
 
Argentina14; 9) Mr. Luis A. González Placencia, President of the Human Rights Commission
 
of the Federal District and Mr. José Luis Caballero Ochoa, Coordinator of the Human Rights
 
Master’s Program of the Ibero-American University; 10) Ms. Úrsula C. Basset, a professor
 
10 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court confirmed that the evidence furnished by Mr. Bustamante,
 
concerning psychological expert opinions on the three girls and statements rendered by several people, were
 
forwarded by the parties as appendices to their main briefs, which included a copy of the main documents of the
 
custody proceeding.
 
11 The brief was presented by Mr. Leopoldo Llanos Sagristá, Minister of the Appeals Court of Temuco, Chile
 
and President of the National Association of Judges of Chile [Asociación Nacional de Magistrados del Poder Judicial
 
de Chile].
 
12 The brief was presented by Ms. Geraldina González de la Vega, Legal Adviser and Mr. Alejandro Juarez
 
Zepeda, General Coordinator.
 
13 The brief was filed by Ms. Marcia Nina Bernardes, Professor at the Law Department and Coordinator of
 
Nucleo de Derechos Humanos of Pontificia Universidad Católica of Rio of Janeiro; Andrea Schettini, Luiza Athayde,
 
Maria Fernanda Marques, Isabella Benevides, Isabella Maioli, Julia Rosa, Juliana Streva, Karen Oliveira and Maria
 
Eduarda Vianna; and Mr. Felipe Saldanha.
 
14 The brief was filed by Mr. Jorge Nicolás Laferriere and Ms. Úrsula C. Basset, Co-Directors of the Seminary.
 
7
 
and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires15; 11) Ms. Judith Butler, professor of the
 
Maxine Elliot Program at the University of California, at Berkeley; 12) Mr. Alejandro Romero
 
Seguel and Ms. Maite Aguirrezabal Grünstein, Doctors of Law at Navarra University and
 
Procedural Law professors; 13) Mr. Carlos Álvarez Cozzi, Professor of Private Law at the
 
Economic Sciences and Administration School and Associate Professor of Private
 
International Law at the Law School of the University of the Republic of Uruguay; 14) Mr.
 
James J. Silk, Director of Allard K. Lowenstein, Legal Clinic on Human Rights, of Yale
 
University Law School; 15) Ms. María Sara Rodríguez Pinto, Doctor of Law at the
 
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and Professor of Civil Law; 16) Ms. Natalia Gherardi,
 
Executive Director of the Equipo Latinoamericano de Justicia and Género, and Ms. Josefina
 
Durán, Director of that organization’s Law Department; 17) Ms. Laura Clérico, Ms. Liliana
 
Ronconi, Mr. Gustavo Beade and Mr. Martín Aldao, professors and researchers at the
 
University of Buenos Aires Law School; 18) Messrs. Carlo Casini, Antonio Gioacchino
 
Spagnolo and Joseph Meaney16; 19) from the Chancellor and some members of the
 
Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo17; 20) Ms. María del Pilar Vásquez Calva,
 
Coordinator of Enlace Gubernamental de Vida and Familia A.C.; 21) Ms. Suzanne B.
 
Goldberg and Mr. Michael Kavey, lawyers at Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic of Columbia
 
University and Ms. Adriana T. Luciano, an attorney at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
 
Garrisson LLP; 22) Ms. Elba Nuñez Ibáñez, Gabriela Filoni, Jeannette Llaja and Mr. Gastón
 
Chillier18; Mr. 23) Mr. Brent McBurney and Mr. Bruce Abramson, attorneys at Advocates
 
International; 24) Ms. Gail English, President of Lawyers Christian Fellowship, and Ms.
 
Shirley Richards; 25) Colombia Diversa and Centro de Derechos Humanos y Litigio
 
Internacional19; 26) Messrs. Piero A. Tozzi and Brian W. Raum of Alliance Defense Fund; 27)
 
Mr. Jorge Rafael Scala, Professor of the postgraduate program on Human Development at
 
the Universidad Libre Internacional de las Américas and Honorary Professor at Universidad
 
Ricardo Palma; 28) the Center for Global Justice, Human Rights and the Rule of Law [Centro
 
para la Justicia Global, los Derechos Humanos y el Estado de Derecho] of the Law School at
 
15 Ms. Ursula C. Basset is a member of the Board of Directors of the International Academy for the Study of
 
Jurisprudence on Family [Academia International para la Jurisprudencia sobre la Family] and the Board of Directors
 
of the International Society of Family Law.
 
16 Mr. Carlo Casini is a member of the European Parliament, President of the Constitutional Affairs
 
Commission of the European Parliament and President of the Italian Pro-Life Movement. Mr. Antonio Gioacchino
 
Spagnolo is a professor of Bioethics and Director of the Bioethics Institute of the Catholic University of the Sacred
 
Heart in Rome. Mr. Joseph Meaney is the director of international coordination at Human Life International.
 
17 The brief was signed by Mr. Hugo Calienes Bedoya, Chancellor and Director of the Institute of Bioethics at
 
USAT, and by Mr. Carlos Tejeda Lombardi, Director of the USAT Law School, Mr. Rafael Santa Maria D’Angelo,
 
Coordinator of the Department of History and Philosophy of Law, Mr. Javier Colina Seminario, legal adviser at
 
USAT, Ms. Rosa Sánchez Barragán, Coordinator of the Department of Civil Law, Ms. Erika Valdivieso López, Dean of
 
the Faculty of Law of USAT, Ms. Angelica Burga Coronel, Professor of Legal Protection of Rights, Ms. Ana María
 
Olguín Britto, Director of the Science Institute for Marriage and the Family of USAT and Ms. Tania Díaz Delgado, all
 
professors of the Law School and the Science Institute for Marriage and the Family of the Catholic University of
 
Santo Toribio of Mongrovejo.
 
18 Ms. Elba Nuñez Ibañez is the Regional Coordinator of the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the
 
Defense of Women’s Rights (CLADEM). Ms. Gabriela Filoni is responsible for the Litigation Support Program of the
 
Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women’s Rights (CLADEM). Ms. Jeannette Llaja is a
 
member of the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women’s Rights of Peru. Mr. Gaston
 
Chillier is the Executive Director of the Center of Legal and Social Studies.
 
19 The brief was filed by Ms. Marcela Sánchez Buitrago, Executive Director of Colombia Diversa, and Mr.
 
Mauricio Noguera Rojas and Mr. Santiago Medina Villareal, on behalf of Colombia Diversa; and Ms. Viviana
 
Bohórquez Monsalve, on behalf of Human Rights and International Litigation Center [Centro de Derechos Humanos
 
y Litigio Internacional].
 
8
 
Regent University20; 29) Mr. Álvaro Francisco Amaya Villareal, Ms. Bárbara Mora Martínez
 
and Ms. Carolina Restrepo Herrera; 30) Ms. Lisa Davis, Ms. Jessica Stern, Ms. Dorothy L.
 
Fernández, Ms. Megan C. Kieffer, Ms. Rachel M. Wertheimer, Ms. Erin I. Herlihy, and Mr.
 
Justin D. Hoogs21; 31) Ms. Andrea Minichiello Williams, Ms. Ruth Ross and Mr. Mark Mudri22;
 
and 32) the Department of Sexual and Reproductive Rights of the Program on Health
 
Rights, Division of Legal Studies of the Center for Economic Research and Education [Área
 
de Derechos Sexuales and Reproductivos del Programa de Right to Salud, División de
 
Estudios Jurídicos del Centro de Investigación and Docencia Económicas23.
 
11. On September 24, 2011, the representatives and the State forwarded their final
 
arguments and the Inter-American Commission presented its final written observations on
 
this case. Moreover, on that occasion, the parties answered the questions prepared by the
 
judges as well as the requests by the Court for evidence to facilitate adjudication of the
 
case. These briefs were forwarded to the parties, to whom the Court gave an opportunity to
 
present any observations deemed pertinent.
 
12. On November 29, 2011, the Court issued a Decision in which it ordered, as evidence
 
to facilitate adjudication of the case, that the three girls M., V. and R., be informed of their
 
right to be heard by the Court and of the consequences arising from the exercise of that
 
right, so that they could express their wishes in that regard24.
 
13. On February 8, 2012, the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court held a hearing in
 
Santiago de Chile in which the girls M. and R. participated. For reasons of force majeure the
 
girl V. was not present at the hearing. During said hearing the girls made several
 
observations in relation to the case, which are of a confidential nature (infra paras. 67 to
 
71).
 
14. On February 16, 2012, the record of the above mentioned proceedings was
 
communicated to the parties. 25
 
20 The brief was filed by Ms. Lynne Marie Kohm, on behalf of the Center for Global Justice, Human Rights and
 
the Rule of Law of the Law School at Regent University.
 
21 The brief was filed by Ms. Lisa Davis, Clinical Professor of Law, of the International Women’s Human Rights
 
Clinic at the City University of New York Law School; Ms. Jessica Stern, of the International Gay and Lesbian
 
Human Rights Commission; and Dorothy L. Fernández, Justin D. Hoogs, Megan C. Kieffer, Rachel M. Wertheimer
 
and Erin I. Herlihy, of Morrison & Foerster LLP. Other participant in the brief include Amnesty International; ARC
 
International; Center for Constitutional Rights; the Council for Global Equality; Human Rights Watch; Lawyers for
 
Children Inc; Legal Aid Society of New York; Legal Momentum; MADRE; Centro Nacional de Derechos Lésbicos;
 
Iniciativa Nacional de Derechos Económicos y Sociales; the New York City Bar Association; Women’s Link
 
Worldwide and the Consultoría para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento (CODHES).
 
22 Ms. Andrea Minichiello Williams is the Director General of the Christian Legal Center/Christian Legal
 
Fellowship. Ms. Ruth Ross is the Executive Director of the Christian Legal Fellowship. Mr. Mark Mudri is the Regional
 
Facilitator of Advocates Oceania.
 
23 The brief was filed by Ms. Estefania Vela Barba and Mr. Alejandro Madrazo Lajous, of the Sexual and
 
Reproductive Rights Area of the Program on Health Rights of the Legal Studies Division of the Center for Economic
 
Research and Teaching.
 
24 Case of Atala Riffo and daughters V. Chile. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of
 
November 29, 2011. Available at: <nowiki>http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/atala_29_11_111.pdf</nowiki>
 
25 In a brief filed on February 23, 2012, the State submitted its observations regarding the confidentiality of
 
the aforementioned record of proceedings.
 
 
9
 
III
 
COMPETENCE
 
15. The Inter- American Court has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with Article
 
62(3) of the American Convention, given the fact that Chile has been a State Party to the
 
American Convention since August 21, 1990 and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the
 
Court on that same date.
 
IV
 
EVIDENCE
 
16. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 49 and 50 of the Rules of Procedure, as well
 
as on the Court’s case law regarding evidence and assessment thereof26, the Court shall
 
now examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at the
 
different procedural stages, the statements of the alleged victim, the testimonies and expert
 
opinions rendered by affidavit and at the public hearing before the Court, as well as
 
evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. In doing so, the Court shall adhere to the
 
principles of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework27.
 
A. Documentary, Testimonial and Expert Evidence
 
17. The Court received the affidavits rendered by the following seven expert witnesses
 
and six witnesses :
 
a) Stefano Fabeni, an expert witness proposed by the Commission, Director of
 
the program on the LGTBI community (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
 
intersexual people) of the Global Rights Organization, who rendered an expert
 
opinion regarding: i) the legislative and other types of measures that a State must
 
adopt to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation in the exercise of public
 
power, and in particular, in the judiciary and ii) the different elements that must be
 
taken into account when formulating and applying public policies to eradicate and
 
prevent discriminatory prejudices based on sexual orientation in that sphere;
 
b) Leonor Etcheberry, an expert witness proposed by the representatives, a
 
lawyer and professor of Family Law at Diego Portales University in Chile, who
 
rendered an expert opinion on: “the manner in which custody proceedings are
 
reviewed and decided under Chilean law and its connection with the way in which the
 
proceeding [...] by the Judge in the Atala Riffo case was carried out";
 
c) Fabiola Lathrop, an expert witness proposed by the representatives, a lawyer
 
and Professor of Family Law at the University of Chile, who rendered an expert
 
opinion on: concepts related to custody in Chile and in comparative law, with an
 
emphasis on discrimination based on sexual orientation;
 
 
26 See Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Legal Costs.
 
Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50 and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary
 
Objections, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C Nº. 227, para. 26.
 
27 See Case of the “White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al) v. Guatemala, Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998.
 
Series C, Nº 37, para. 76; and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 26.
 
10
 
d) Miguel Cillero, an expert witness proposed by the representatives, a professor
 
of Law at Diego Portales University in Chile, who rendered an expert opinion on: the
 
treatment of the principle of the best interests of the child under International Law;
 
e) Monica Pinto, an expert witness proposed by the representatives, a law
 
professor and dean at the Law School of the University of Buenos Aires, who
 
rendered an expert opinion on: the development of international human rights law in
 
relation to non-discrimination and the treatment of sexual orientation as a suspect
 
category;
 
f) Maria Alicia Espinoza Abarzúa, an expert witness proposed by the
 
representatives, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, who rendered an expert opinion
 
on: the alleged mental damage caused and the alleged need for therapy of the
 
daughters of Ms. Atala Riffo;
 
g) Claudia Figueroa Morales, an expert witness proposed by the representatives,
 
an adult psychiatrist, who rendered an expert opinion on: i) the mental health and
 
alleged impact on the life plan of Ms. Atala Riffo as a result of the custody
 
proceedings and ii) Ms. Atala Riffo’s alleged need for psychiatric support in the
 
future;
 
h) Juan Pablo Olmedo, a witness proposed by the representatives, who made a
 
statement regarding: the alleged interference with the private life of Ms. Atala during
 
the custody proceedings in which he acted as her lawyer;
 
i) Sergio Vera Atala, a witness proposed by the representatives, who made a
 
statement regarding: the alleged impact on his family life, on his mother’s life, on
 
Ms. Atala Riffo and on the lives of his sisters as a result of the legal proceedings in
 
Chile;
 
j) María del Carmen Riffo Véjar, a witness proposed by the representatives, who
 
made a statement regarding: the alleged impact that the decision of the Supreme
 
Court of Chile had on her family life, on her daughter's life, on Ms. Atala Riffo and on
 
her granddaughters;
 
k) Judith Riffo Véjar, a witness proposed by the representatives, who made a
 
statement regarding: the alleged impact that the decision of the Supreme Court of
 
Chile had on her family life, on her niece’s life, on Ms. Atala Riffo and on her grand
 
nieces;
 
l) Elías Atala Riffo, a witness proposed by the representatives, who made a
 
statement regarding: the alleged impact that the decision of the Supreme Court of
 
Chile has had on his family life, on his sister's life, on Ms. Atala Riffo and on his
 
nieces; and
 
m) Emma De Ramón, a witness proposed by the representatives, who made a
 
statement regarding: the process experienced by the family of Ms. Atala during the
 
custody proceedings and after the judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Chile.
 
18. As to the evidence produced at the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of
 
the alleged victim and five expert witnesses:
 
11
 
a) Karen Atala Riffo, the alleged victim proposed by the representatives, who
 
made a statement regarding: i) the alleged violation of her rights from the beginning
 
of the custody proceeding of her daughters and ii) the alleged impact of the decision
 
issued by the Supreme Court of Chile on her personal and family life;
 
b) Juan Carlos Marín, an expert witness proposed by the representatives, a
 
Chilean lawyer and professor of Civil Law at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo of
 
Mexico, who rendered an expert opinion regarding: the use of the recurso de queja
 
(remedy of complaint) and its exceptional use;
 
c) Robert Warren Wintemute, an expert witness proposed by the
 
representatives, Professor of Human Rights at King’s College London, who rendered
 
an expert opinion regarding: the status of International Law regarding discrimination
 
based on sexual orientation, with emphasis on the European Human Rights System;
 
d) Rodrigo Uprimny, an expert witness proposed by the Commission, an expert
 
on the right to equality and non-discrimination, who rendered an expert opinion
 
regarding: i) international human rights standards related to sexual orientation and
 
their links with the rights to equality, non-discrimination and private life and ii) the
 
treatment of sexual orientation under international law as a prohibited criterion for
 
discrimination, and as an aspect of a person’s private life and the relevant case law
 
in the universal human rights system, in other regional systems and in comparative
 
law;
 
e) Allison Jernow, an expert witness proposed by the Commission, a lawyer with
 
the International Commission of Jurists and coordinator of the project on sexual
 
orientation and gender identity, who rendered an expert opinion regarding: i) the
 
use of sexual orientation as a factor in judicial decisions regarding custody, in light of
 
international human rights standards in the matter of equality, non-discrimination
 
and private and family life; and ii) the relationship between the standards of
 
international human rights law and custody issues in the present case, and
 
f) Emilio García Mendez, an expert witness proposed by the Commission, an
 
international adviser on the rights of the child, who rendered an expert opinion on: i)
 
international standards on the human rights of children applicable to cases related to
 
care and custody; ii) the way in which the best interests of children and their right to
 
participate and be heard in procedures concerning them, must be reflected in the
 
practice of the judicial authorities who decide such cases and iii) the harm caused to
 
the child’s best interests when discriminatory prejudices are applied in such
 
decisions.
 
B. Admission of Documentary Evidence
 
19. In the case at hand, as in many other cases28, the Court admits the evidentiary
 
value of such documents timely forwarded by the parties, which have not been disputed or
 
challenged, or their authenticity questioned, only insofar as these are pertinent and useful
 
to determine the facts and their possible legal consequences.
 
 
28 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para.
 
140; and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of
 
November 29, 2011. Series C Nº. 238, para. 13.
 
12
 
20. As to the newspaper articles submitted, this Court has considered that these may be
 
assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or statements by State officials, or
 
when they corroborate aspects related to the case. 29 Therefore, the Court decides to admit
 
those newspaper articles that are complete, or at least those whose source and publication
 
date can be verified, and shall assess them according to the body of evidence, the
 
observations of the parties and the rules of sound judgment.
 
21. As to some of the documents referred to by the parties by means of their electronic
 
links, the Court has established that if a party provides at least the direct electronic link to
 
the document cited as evidence, and it is possible to access this document, the legal
 
certainty and the procedural balance will not be affected, because its location is immediately
 
available to the Court and to the other parties30. In this case, no opposition or observations
 
were expressed by the other parties regarding the content and authenticity of the
 
documents.
 
22. Furthermore, together with the final written arguments, the representatives and the
 
State forwarded various documents as evidence, which were requested by the Court based
 
on the terms stipulated in Article 58(b) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and the parties
 
had the opportunity to present any observations deemed pertinent. The Court admits said
 
documents as evidence. These will be assessed taking into consideration the body of
 
evidence, the observations of the parties and the rules of sound judgment.
 
23. Following the public hearing, written versions of the expert opinions rendered by
 
Juan Carlos Marín, Robert Warren Wintemute and Allison Jernow at the public hearing in
 
this case were forwarded. These statements were also conveyed to the other parties. The
 
Court admits these documents insofar as they refer to the purpose duly specified by the
 
President of the Court for such expert opinions (supra para. 18), considering these are
 
useful for the present case and that there were no objections, nor was their authenticity or
 
veracity challenged.
 
C. Admission of testimonial and expert evidence
 
24. As to the statements rendered before a notary public and those made at the public
 
hearing, the Court admits these, considering they are relevant inasmuch as they relate to
 
the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra paras.
 
17 and 18). These statements shall be assessed in the appropriate chapter, together with
 
the entire body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the parties31.
 
25. According to the case-law of this Court, the statements made by the alleged victims
 
cannot be assessed separately but as part of the entire body of evidence in the proceedings,
 
since they are useful insofar as they may provide more information on the alleged violations
 
and their consequences32. Based on the foregoing, the Court admits the statement made by
 
29 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 28, para. 146 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra
 
note 28, para. 14.
 
30 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C
 
Nº. 165, para. 26; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 12, para. 86; and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v.
 
Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No.
 
212, para. 54. 31 Cf. Case Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43 and
 
Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No.
 
238, para. 25.
 
13
 
the alleged victim, Karen Atala, which shall be assessed according to the aforementioned
 
criterion.
 
26. Furthermore, regarding the expert witnesses, the State made several observations
 
based on, in general: a) its disagreement with the content of some of the expert opinions,
 
contradicting or giving its opinion regarding such reports; b) the scope of the statements of
 
the expert witnesses in relation to the purpose of the expert opinion, which, on occasion,
 
the State considers to be biased or merely personal observations; c) some elements used to
 
render such an opinion and d) the methodology used to render some of the opinions.
 
27. The Court considers it pertinent to point out that, unlike witnesses, who should avoid
 
giving personal opinions, expert witnesses may offer technical or personal opinions as long
 
as these are related to their special knowledge or experience. In addition, experts may refer
 
both to specific matters of the case or any other relevant point of the litigation, provided
 
that these concern the purpose for which they were convened and the conclusions are well
 
founded33. As to observations concerning the content of the expert opinions, the Court finds
 
that such observations do not challenge their admissibility, but seek to question their
 
evidentiary value, for which reason these shall be considered, if pertinent, in the relevant
 
chapters of this Judgment.
 
28. In particular, regarding the observations made by the State about the alleged “lack
 
of objectivity and the personal considerations” made by expert witness Espinoza, which fall
 
outside the purpose for which she was summoned, the Court shall consider the State’s
 
observation and repeats that it shall admit only those statements that serve the purpose
 
duly stipulated (supra para. 17). Regarding the methodology of the expert report of Ms.
 
Espinoza, notwithstanding the objection made by the State, the Court notes that, in said
 
report, there is an explanation of the procedure followed. Expert witness Espinoza pointed
 
out that she based her report on the meetings held with the López Atala girls and their
 
mother, as well as on various precedents. The Court considers that the objections to the
 
method used by the expert witness, which stem from the report itself, do not affect its
 
admissibility.
 
V
 
RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION, RIGHT TO PRIVATE LIFE,
 
RIGHT TO FAMILY LIFE, RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
 
AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO
 
RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS REGARDING THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING
 
29. Firstly, the Court considers it necessary to emphasize that the purpose of the present
 
case is not to determine whether the mother or the father offered the three girls a better
 
home (infra paras. 64 to 66). In this case, the dispute between the parties concerns two
 
aspects: i) the custody suit filed by the father of the girls and ii) the disciplinary proceeding
 
conducted against Ms. Atala. This chapter focuses on the debates surrounding the custody
 
trial. In a subsequent chapter, the disciplinary proceeding will be analyzed.
 
A. Proven facts in relation to the custody proceedings
 
32 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 31, para 43 and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 26, para 34.
 
33 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs.
 
Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C N° 197, para. 42; and Case of Barrios Family, supra note 31, para 28.
 
14
 
30. On March 29, 1993, Ms. Atala married Ricardo Jaime López Allendes34. Her
 
daughters, M., V., and R. were born in 1994, 1998, and 1999, respectively35. Ms. Atala has
 
an older son, Sergio Vera Atala, who was born of a previous marriage. In March 2002, Ms.
 
Atala and Mr. López Allendes decided to end their marriage through a de facto separation.
 
As part of the dissolution of their marriage, they established by mutual consent that Ms.
 
Atala would maintain the care and custody of the three girls in the city of Villarica, with
 
weekly visits to the home of their father in Temuco36. In November 2002, Ms. Emma de
 
Ramón, the partner of Ms. Atala, began living in the same house with Ms. Atala, her three
 
daughters and her eldest son37.
 
1) Custody proceedings38
 
31. On January 14, 2003, the father of the three girls filed a custody suit with the
 
Juvenile Court of Villarrica, considering that “the physical and emotional development [of
 
the girls] was seriously at risk” should they continue to live in the care of their mother. In
 
the suit, Mr. López argued that Ms. Atala “[was] not capable of watching over and caring for
 
[the three girls, given that] her new sexual lifestyle choice, together with her cohabiting in a
 
lesbian relationship with another woman, [were] producing […] harmful consequences for
 
the development of these minors …” since the mother [had] not shown any concern for
 
caring and protecting [...] the development of the girl[s]." In addition, Mr. López argued
 
that “[to] treat as normal, within the legal order, partners of the same sex [leads] to distort
 
the meaning of a human couple, man and woman, and therefore, alters the natural meaning
 
of the family, [...] since it affects the fundamental values of the family, as the core unit of
 
society”; therefore, the “sexual choice made by the mother w[ould] disrupt the healthy, fair
 
and normal coexistence to which [M., V. and R.] have a right.” Finally, Mr. López argued
 
that “[i]t would be necessary to take into account all the consequences of a biological
 
nature that would be implied for minors living with a lesbian couple [;] in fact, solely in
 
terms of diseases, given the sexual practices of a lesbian couple, the girls are [would be]
 
34 Cf. Marriage certificate of September 22, 2011 (case record, volume XII, page 5926).
 
35 Cf. Psychological Reports on M., V., and R., of November 15, 2002 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume V, appendix 23, pages 2680, 2683 and 2686).
 
36 Cf. Decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of October 29, 2003 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume V, appendix 12, page 2581).
 
37 In this regard, the Juvenile Court of Villarrica established that “in June 2002 [Ms. Atala] began a
 
relationship with [Ms.] Emma of Ramón [,] who since November 2002 work [ed] as the coordinator of the regional
 
archive of Araucanía in the town of Temuco [and therefore, move[d] into the common home and join [ed] the
 
nuclear family.” Judgment of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica on October 29, 2003 (File of appendices to the
 
application, volume V, appendix 12, page 2582).
 
38 The system for the custody of minors in Chile is governed by Article 225 of the Civil Code, which provides
 
that: “If the parents live separately, the mother shall see to the personal care of the children. Nonetheless, through
 
a public document, or document issued before any official of the Civil Registry, with an entry on the margin of the
 
child’s birth record within thirty days of the granting thereof, both parties may, by mutual agreement, determine
 
that the personal care of one or more children falls to the father. This agreement may be revoked, following the
 
same formalities. Be that as it may, when necessary to protect the interests of the child, whether because of
 
mistreatment, neglect, or another just cause, the judge may transfer the care of the child to the other parent But it
 
would not entrust the personal care of the child to a parent who had not contributed, while she or he could, to the
 
upkeep of the child while the child was in the custody of the other parent. As long as an amendment related to the
 
personal care is not annulled by a subsequent one, any agreement or resolution is unenforceable to third parties.”
 
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (File of appendices to the application, volume
 
V, page 2671)
 
15
 
under constant risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases such as herpes and AIDS”
 
39.
 
32. On January 28, 2003, Ms. Atala responded to the custody suit filed by Mr.
 
López, expressing “the sadness it has caused me to read the libelous allegations and the
 
manner in which what our family life was and, what is today my private life, were described
 
and judged.” Ms. Atala alleged that its text and tone “affected her due to its aggressiveness,
 
prejudice, discrimination, ignorance of the right to homosexual identity, the distortion of the
 
facts it expresses and, finally, its disdain for the best interest of [her] daughters.” She also
 
asserted that “the allegations made regarding [her] sexual identity have nothing to do with
 
[her] function and role as a mother, and consequently, should remain outside the suit, in
 
that issues of connubial relations and sexual choice do not extend to parental relationships,
 
which are the subject of the proceeding.” Finally, Ms. Atala argued that neither the Chilean
 
Civil Code nor the law on minors consider a “different sexual choice” as being grounds for
 
“disqualification as a parent” 40.
 
33. On January 28, 2003, the Juvenile Court of Villarrica ordered “discovery” for
 
which it decided to establish the following items as “substantial, pertinent and disputed
 
facts”: i) “grounds for qualification and disqualification of parents to have custody of the
 
minors” and ii) the “environment offered by the parents to the minors”. Also, the court
 
decided to set a date for a hearing and request, inter alia, the following items of evidence: i)
 
“psychological report on both parties and on the minors"; ii) “psychiatric report on both
 
parties”; iii) to hear “the minors in question at a private hearing”; iv) “complete socio-
 
economic report of the respondent and the minors” and v) to request the "Psychology
 
Department of the University of Chile [to confirm] whether any psychological studies exist
 
at the national and international level to show if there are differences between children
 
raised by heterosexual and homosexual couples and the consequences that such
 
circumstances may have in relation to minors”41.
 
34. A number of media organizations covered the custody suit, including
 
newspapers with national circulation such as Las Últimas Noticias and La Cuarta42. Based on
 
these news reports, and other reasons related to the alleged misuse of remedies at the
 
criminal court of Villarrica where Ms. Atala served as a judge (infra para. 211), on March 19,
 
2003, the full Court of Appeals of Temuco appointed Judge Lenin Lillo43 to conduct a special
 
visit at the criminal court.
 
35. On March 11, 2003, Ms. Atala’s representative furnished documentary
 
evidence, requested that six testimonies be admitted and asked the court to carry out other
 
evidentiary proceedings, which was accepted by the trial court44. In addition, the
 
39 Custody suit filed before the Juvenile Court of Villarrica on January 14, 2003 (File of appendices to the
 
petition, volume V, annex 1, pages 2499, 2500, 2503 and 2504).
 
40 Response to the custody suit of January 28, 2003 (File of appendices to the application, volume V,
 
appendix 2, pages 2507, 2513, 2516, 2521 and 2522).
 
41 Court Order of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of January 28, 2003 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume I, page 113 and 114). 42 Press release, “Lawyer Demands Custody of his Daughters because Spouse/Judge is a Lesbian”,
 
Newspaper La Cuarta, February 28, 2003; and “Lawyer Demands Custody of his Daughters because his Former
 
Wife is a Lesbian”, Newspaper Las Últimas Noticias, March 1, 2003 (File of appendices to the application, volume V,
 
appendices 3 and 4, pages 2529 to 2532).
 
43 Report prepared by Minister Lenin Lillo Hunzinker, Court of Appeals of Temuco, April 2, 2003 (case file,
 
volume XII, page 5927).
 
44 Specifically, the representative furnished the following documentary evidence: i) psychological report of V.
 
and R. of December 2002; ii) psychological report of M. of December 2002; iii) psychological report of the minors
 
and their mother; iv) certification provided by the nurse at the health center attended by the minors, certifying
 
that “there [was] no evidence or physical signs of mistreatment” in the girls; v) copy of the academic reports of M.
 
16
 
representative requested the trial court to carry out different proceedings45. Moreover, Mr.
 
López’ attorney requested the trial court to produce twenty-two testimonies, a request that
 
was also accepted by the court46. On April 3, 2003, the Juvenile Court of Villarrica received
 
the testimonies of six relatives of the complainant and three relatives of the respondent47.
 
36. On April 8, 2003, the Juvenile Court of Villarrica held a private hearing with the
 
girls M., V. and R. and “a record of the private hearing was kept in a closed envelope at the
 
safe of the Court". The court also heard the elder son of Ms. Atala at the private hearing48.
 
37. On April 10, 2003, a hearing was held to present documentary evidence49. On
 
April 14, 2003, the Juvenile Court of Villarrica received four testimonies from individuals
 
proposed by the petitioner, in particular from a psychologist and a social worker50. In this
 
regard, the social worker when asked whether “children raised in homosexual families suffer
 
adverse consequences”, indicated that “there are social consequences, such as confusing
 
paternal and maternal roles which affect the development of sexual identity." The social
 
worker added that “another of the consequences is that in Chile, according to a study [...]
 
on tolerance and discrimination [carried out] in 1997, the conclusion was reached that
 
Chileans show an outright rejection of homosexual minorities[,] expressed by 60.2 per cent
 
of the population. [Based] on the foregoing and taking into account this high level of
 
discrimination[,] the minors would be exposed to situations of social discrimination that they
 
would not have wished for”51.
 
38. In addition to the relatives and close friends who made statements during the
 
hearing (supra para. 35) three domestic employees who worked at the home of the López
 
Atala family also made statements, indicating, among other things, that the father showed
 
far more concern for his daughters than Ms. Atala52. One of the workers also described the
 
behavior of the girls53.
 
 
and V.; vi) Christmas card made by M.; vii) copy of the decisions "in which the minors [were] recognized as
 
dependant relatives of the respondent"; viii) certificate of “Isapré Más Vida”; ix) copy of the grades obtained by Ms.
 
Atala in her profession; x) copy of the alimony arrangements made between Ms. Atala and the father of her elder
 
son; xi) copy of a health certificate of Ms. Atala “certifying the absence of genital herpes”; xii) copy of a health
 
certificate of Ms. Emma of Ramón “certifying the absence of genital herpes” xiii) copy of the negative AIDS test of
 
Ms. Atala; xiv) copy of the negative AIDS test of Ms. of Ramón; and xv) notary’s copy of the appointment of Ms. of
 
Ramón as coordinator of the regional archive of Araucanía. Brief of Ms. Atala of March 11, 2003 (File of appendices
 
to the application, volume I, pages 192 to 193). 45 The attorney requested: i) a report of the psychiatrist in charge of marriage counseling for Ms. Atala and
 
the petitioner; ii) to issue an official letter to the human rights department of the claimant’s workplace; iii) to
 
request the Pan American Health Organization to inform on “the date on which homosexuality was eliminated from
 
the catalogue of pathological conducts”; iv) to request the National Women’s Service to inform regarding the
 
“concept of family included in the Report of the National Commission on Family"; v) to request the General Ministry
 
of Government to forward the plan to overcome discrimination in Chile; and vi) to request the Director of the
 
Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to inform "on the international obligations assumed by
 
the [...] State of Chile in the field of non-discrimination for sexual orientation or identity". Brief of Ms. Atala of
 
March 11, 2003 (File of appendices to the application, volume I, pages 193 to 195). 46 Cf. Brief of Mr. López of March 11, 2003 (File of appendices to the application, volume I, pages 197 to
 
199).
 
47 Cf. Record of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of April 3, 2003 (File of appendices to the application, volume
 
I, pages 327 to 334).
 
48 Cf. Record of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of April 8, 2003 (File of appendices to the application, volume
 
I, pages 350 and 351).
 
49 Cf. Record of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of April 10, 2003 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume I, pages 352 to 373).
 
50 Cf. Record of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of April 14, 2003 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume I, pages 374 to 393).
 
51 Testimony of Edith Paola Retarnal Arevalo of April 14, 2003 (File of appendices to the application, volume
 
I, page 390).
 
52 Cf. Testimonial evidence rendered in an affidavit on April 14, 2003 before the Juvenile Court of Villarrica
 
by Erecilda Teresa Solis Ruíz (File of appendices to the application, volume I, page 370), Ana Delia Pacheco
 
17
 
2) Provisional custody granted to the father
 
39. In the context of the custody suit, the girls’ father filed a suit for provisional custody
 
on March 10, 2003, with a view to obtaining custody of his daughters prior to the conclusion
 
of the proceeding. In this regard, Mr. López representative argued the alleged
 
“incompetence that the sexual choice made by the mother and respondent, [Ms.] Atala
 
Riffo, and that was reflected in her express acknowledgement that she is a lesbian,
 
produces and will produce for the overall psychological and social-environmental
 
development of these three young girls, not to mention the hardly maternal and violent
 
behavior she has shown over the years, not only with her family but also with her social
 
environment.” In addition, she argued that “the respondent’s need to be happy and fulfill
 
herself as a person in all areas of her life […] is not compatible with being a parent, which
 
includes maternal capabilities [...], which, it seems, the respondent has selfishly
 
disregarded.” The representative of girls’ father also argued that the girls have the right to
 
live in a family made up of a father and mother of different sexes54.
 
40. On March 13, 2003, Ms. Atala answered the provisional custody motion filed by her
 
former spouse, asking that it be rejected in its entirety. In particular, Ms. Atala’s
 
representative argued that:
 
The legal representative of the petitioner [sought] to render without effect the status quo
 
achieved to date, a situation to which she has contributed with her assistance, participation, and
 
personal contribution as a professional in the appearances made, having achieved a temporary
 
system that better reflects the best interests of the minors […]. The fact that [Ms. Atala] is a
 
lesbian and acknowledges her condition as such, does not affect her maternal abilities and her
 
ability to create an environment with love, affection, respect, and tolerance for the purposes of
 
the education and development of the girls as human beings and future citizens of our country.
 
55
 
41. On May 2, 2003, the Juvenile Court of Villarica granted provisional custody of the
 
girls to the father, and regulated the mother’s visits, even though it expressly acknowledged
 
that there was no evidence to presume the legal incompetence of the mother. The Juvenile
 
Court based its decision, inter alia, on the following arguments: i) “Whereas […] the
 
respondent, having expressly acknowledged her sexual choice, cohabits with her partner in
 
the home she shares with her daughters, […] thereby altering the normal family routine,
 
giving preference to her personal interests and well-being over the emotional well-being and
 
social development of her daughters” and ii) “Whereas, the fact that the respondent has
 
given preference to her own well-being and personal interest over carrying out her role as a
 
mother, under conditions that could affect the subsequent development of the minors in the
 
case, […]there is no conclusion other than that the petitioner presents more favorable
 
arguments on behalf of the best interest of the girls, arguments which, in the context of a
 
heterosexual and traditional society, take on great importance” 56.
 
 
Guzmán (File of appendices to the application, volume I, page 375), and Graciela del Carmen Curín Jara (File of
 
appendices to the application, volume I, page 377).
 
53 Cf. Testimonial evidence obtained through an oral statement rendered on April 14, 2003 before the
 
Juvenile Court of Villarrica by Ana Delia Pacheco Guzmán (File of appendices to the application, volume I, page
 
376).
 
54 Suit for Provisional Custody of Mr. López Allendes of March 10, 2003 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume V, pages 2546 to 2552).
 
55 Response to Motion for Provisional Custody of March 13, 2003(File of appendices to the application,
 
volume V, pages 2554 to 2557).
 
56 Decision in the provisional custody proceeding by the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, May 2, 2003 (File of
 
appendices to the application, volume V, appendix 10, pages 2559 to 2567). In the context of the provisional
 
18
 
42. On May 8, 2003, in compliance with the decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica,
 
Ms. Atala delivered her three daughters to their father57. In response to that decision, on
 
May 13, 2003, Ms. Atala sought to prevent the Regular Judge of the Juvenile Court of
 
Villarica from continuing to hear the custody proceeding based on his having incurred in
 
grounds for incompatibility [implicancia] as set forth in the Organic Code of the Courts58.
 
Ms. Atala’s representative maintained that in the decision of May 2, 2003, the judge gave
 
“form and content, with the force of a judicial decision, to a specific model of society, a view
 
that is no doubt at the bottom of the issue presented and is discriminatory because it is
 
based on stereotypes and patriarchal assumptions that do not accept and value diversity
 
and pluralism within society”59.
 
43. On May 14, 2003, the Regular Judge of the Juvenile Court of Villarica declared the
 
“sufficient grounds” for incompatibility (implicancia) without expressing an opinion on the
 
merits, and refrained from intervening in the custody proceeding until it was resolved in
 
accordance with Article 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure60.
 
3) Lower court decision granting custody of the girls to Ms. Atala
 
44. Given the disqualification of the Regular Judge, the Acting Judge of the Juvenile
 
Court of Villarica was responsible for issuing a decision on the merits on October 29, 200361.
 
In that ruling, the Judge rejected the petition for custody based on the view that the
 
existing evidence had established that the respondent’s sexual orientation was not an
 
impediment to carrying out responsible motherhood, that there was no psychiatric
 
pathology that would prevent her from exercising her “role as a mother,” and that there
 
were no indications that would allow for the presumption of any grounds for incapacity on
 
the part of the mother to take on the personal care of the minors. The Judge also concluded
 
that “no concrete evidence has shown that the presence of the mother’s partner in the
 
 
custody proceeding, the Juvenile Court gathered as testimonial evidence the following statements from: i) a
 
godfather of one of the girls; ii) a psychologist; iii) a friend of the family; iv) a domestic employee, and v) a nanny
 
(Merits file, volume XII, pages 5919 to 5921). Furthermore, the Juvenile Court considered as documentary
 
evidence various newspaper publications, a socio-economic report, a set of photographs, a report issued by Ms.
 
Atala’s psychiatrist, a report by the psychologist in charge of the girls’ therapy and the report of a student nurse
 
(Merits file, volume XII, pages 5918 to 5921). Likewise, the Court considered that “sufficient grounds exist[ed] to
 
affect the duty to personal care, legally established, [for which reason] the petitioner’s request was accept[ed].”
 
57 Cf. Record of May 15, 2003 (File of appendices to the application, volume I, page 572). 58 In this respect, the Organic Code of Courts [Código Orgánico de Cortes] provides:
 
Art. 194. Judges may not be competent to hear certain cases based on incompatibility or recusal, if necessary, by
 
virtue of legal reasons.
 
Art. 195. Incompatibility grounds: […] 8. The judge having given his opinion regarding the issue at hand with full
 
knowledge of the precedents necessary to issue a judgment.
 
Available at <nowiki>http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/chi_res9.pdf</nowiki> (last visit February 22, 2012)
 
59 Petition to bar Judge Luis Humberto Toledo Obando, May 13, 2003 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume V, page 2573).
 
60 Court Order of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of May 14, 2003 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume II, page 569). Article 120 of the Chilean Code of Civil Procedure in effect at the time of the events provides
 
that: Once grounds for disqualification are accepted as sufficient or declared in accordance with subparagraph 2 of
 
the preceding article, said declaration shall be made known to the official whose incompatibility or recusal has been
 
sought, ordering him to abstain from participating in the matter in question as long as the motion is not resolved”.
 
Available at: <nowiki>http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=172986</nowiki> (last access February 20, 2012), electronic address
 
furnished by the State in its brief of final arguments (Merits file, volume XII, page 5914).
 
61 Decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of October 29, 2003 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume V, page 2607).
 
19
 
home is harmful to the well-being of the girls.” The Judge pointed out that it had been
 
established that homosexuality was not considered pathological conduct and that the
 
respondent showed no “contraindication from a psychological perspective that would make
 
her unfit to carry out her maternal role.”
 
45. In evaluating Ms. Atala’s alleged incapacity to be a mother, because of her
 
acknowledged status as a lesbian and because she was living with a partner of the same
 
sex, the court considered a series of reports from organizations such as the Pan American
 
Health Organization, the Psychology Department of the University of Chile, and the School
 
of Education of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, indicating that: i) “homosexuality
 
is a normal behavior and is not a manifestation of a pathological conduct” and ii) “the ability
 
to love children, care for them, protect them, respect their rights, and promote their life
 
choices […], is unrelated to the sexual identity or choices of the parents” 62. The court also
 
considered psychological reports on the minors and psychological reports on the respondent
 
and the petitioner, concluding that “the presence of the mother’s partner in the home
 
[where] the girls live[d] with their mother [was] not an impediment for the mother to
 
assume the personal care of the minors [and that] no concrete evidence ha[d] shown that
 
the presence of the mother’s partner in the home is harmful to the well-being of the girls.”
 
46. Regarding the quality of care that Ms. Atala provided for her daughters, the court
 
considered a report issued by a nurse at Villarrica Hospital and educational reports, and
 
indicated that this evidence “demonstrates the mother’s constant concern for the health and
 
education of her daughters and, consequently, it is established that the respondent has
 
provided for the upbringing, personal care and education of her daughters." The court also
 
indicated that although the complaint stated that the girls had been subject to mistreatment
 
by Ms. Atala, “it never describes concrete acts, and whether such acts amounted to physical
 
or mental mistreatment.” In addition, it declared that the court believed that there was no
 
evidence that would “lend credence to any type of mistreatment of the girls” by their
 
mother.
 
47. On the petitioner’s argument regarding the girls’ risk of contracting sexually
 
transmitted diseases, the judge considered medical certificates of Ms. Atala and her partner
 
confirming that there is no evidence of such diseases. On the moral danger the minors
 
allegedly faced, the trial court considered a social report on the respondent demonstrating a
 
harmonious family environment, “with clear rules and limits and a family routine that
 
operates appropriately with the supervision of the mother, who in the context of a
 
satisfactory partnership relationship, is seen as being in harmony with her environment and
 
concerned with and close to her daughters.” In addition, the court referred to the conclusion
 
of the report from the Psychology Department of the University of Chile asserting that “the
 
sexual orientation of the mother does not constitute a danger to the morality of the minors
 
because, as already indicated, as it is a normal condition or form of human sexuality it is
 
not subject to an ethical or moral judgment but rather may only be considered a person’s
 
physical condition, and not in itself subject to a value judgment.”
 
48. Regarding the potential discrimination that the girls might be subjected to and that
 
was mentioned by relatives and witnesses for the petitioner, the Acting Judge also
 
concluded that “the minors have not been subjected to any discrimination to date and what
 
the witnesses and relatives of the petitioner indicate is a fear of possible future
 
discrimination.” On this point, the court considered that it should “base [its] decision on
 
definite and proven facts in the case and not on mere suppositions or fears.”
 
62 Decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, October 29 2003 (File of appendices to the petition, volume V,
 
pages 2591, 2594 and 2595).
 
20
 
49. Finally, in its decision, the Juvenile Court considered that the girls had been heard by
 
the court and that, in the last hearing, dated October 8, 2003, “R. and V. expressed their
 
desire to return to live with their mother, and in the case of M. only a slight preference for
 
the mother was detected.” In this respect, the court observed that the statements made by
 
the girls during the hearing had been given consideration, but did not influence the court’s
 
decision due to their young age and the possibility that their opinions might be affected
 
“artificially by outside factors that influence them, distort them, or make them unsuited to
 
the proposed purpose.” 63
 
4) Appeal to the Court of Appeals of Temuco and injunction granted in favor of
 
the father
 
50. Pursuant to the decision issued on October 29, 2003, the Juvenile Court of Villarrica
 
ordered that the girls be handed over to their mother on December 18, 200364. However, on
 
November 11, 2003, the girls’ father filed an appeal against the court’s Decision and
 
subsequently a petition for temporary injunction [solicitud provisional de no innovar],
 
arguing that complying with the decision would mean a radical and violent change in the
 
girls’ current status quo65.
 
51. On November 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals of Temuco granted the injunction,
 
maintaining custody with the father66. With respect to this injunction, Ms. Atala filed a
 
disciplinary complaint against two members of the Court, based on the grounds of recusal
 
and disqualification.
 
67 Chile’s Supreme Court of Justice ruled on her complaint on July 2,
 
2004, declaring by a majority vote that there was no fault or abuse on the part of the
 
Judges. Notwithstanding this decision, some members of the Court "almost issued a severe
 
warning to the judges being challenged due to the omission for which the complaint was
 
filed.”68
 
52. On March 30, 2004, the Court of Appeals of Temuco, without the two Judges who
 
had withdrawn from the proceeding (supra para.51), unanimously upheld the decision
 
appealed by the girls’ father, sharing the considerations of the lower court judge, and
 
rendered without effect the injunction granted on November 24, 200369. The Court of
 
Appeals did not put forward new grounds and fully upheld the lower court’s decision.
 
63 Decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of October 29, 2003 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume V, pages 2591, 2594, 2595).
 
64 Court Order of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of November 5, 2003 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume II, page 933).
 
65 Appeal filed by Mr. López Allendes, on November 11, 2003 (File of appendices to the application, volume
 
V, pages 2614 to 2632) and Petition for Temporary Injunction filed by Mr. López Allendes on November 22, 2003
 
(File of appendices to the application, volume V, pages 2634 to 2636). 66 Granting of injunction by the Court of Appeals of Temuco, November 24, 2003 (File of appendices to the
 
application, volume V, page 2638).
 
67 On January 7, 2003, the Rapporteur of the Court of Appeals of Temuco certified that "Judge Archibaldo
 
Loyola had disqualified himself from hearing the case and that Judge Lenin Lillo Hunzinker had considered that the
 
grounds for recusal, stipulated in Article 196 of the Organic Code of Courts, applied to him, insofar as he had prior
 
knowledge of the case, given that he had participated in an investigation during the extraordinary visit to the
 
Juvenile Court of Villarrica". See File of appendices to the application, volume V, page 2640. 68 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, July 2, 2004 (File of appendices to the application, volume
 
V, page 2645).
 
69 Judgment of the Temuco Court of Appeals, March 30, 2004 (File of appendices to the application, volume
 
V, page 2643).
 
21
 
5) Filing of remedy of complaint (recurso de queja) with the Supreme Court of
 
Justice and granting of second injunction in favor of the father
 
53. On April 5, 2004, the girls’ father filed a remedy of complaint (recurso de queja) with
 
the Supreme Court of Chile against the Judges of the Court of Appeals of Temuco and
 
requested that the girls remain in his care on a provisional basis. The girls’ father argued
 
that, in their decision, the judges being challenged had committed a “fault and serious and
 
flagrant abuse” because; i) they [had] given preference to the rights of the mother over the
 
rights of the daughters; ii) they [had] failed in their legal duty to protect the vulnerability of
 
the girls; and iii) they [had] violated the principles governing the conscientious assessment
 
of evidence in cases involving family matters.
 
70 More specifically, Mr. López Allendes argued
 
that the judges had ignored all the evidence in the case demonstrating that “open
 
expression of lesbian behavior produced directly and immediately in M., V., and R. confusion
 
regarding sexual roles that interfered with and will later interfere with the development of a
 
clear and defined sexual identity.”71 The Court granted the requested injunction on April 7,
 
2004.
 
72
 
6) Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile
 
54. On May 31, 2004, the Fourth Chamber of Chile’s Supreme Court of Justice, in a split
 
three-to-two decision, admitted the complaint appeal and granted permanent custody to the
 
father. 73
 
55. In the first place, the Supreme Court emphasized that “in all measures concerning
 
[children], the best interests of children must be given priority over other considerations
 
and rights related to their parents, in such a way that it might be necessary to separate
 
them from their parents." The Supreme Court also noted that the first paragraph of Article
 
225 of the Civil Code, which provides that when parents are living separately the personal
 
care of the children falls to the mother, is not an “absolute and final” rule. Therefore, the
 
Court declared that “the court may entrust the personal care of the children to the other
 
parent, terminating the custody of the parent who has it, if there is ‘justified cause’ that
 
makes it essential to make this decision, always taking the interest of the child into
 
account.”
 
56. In this context, the Court concluded that: i) “no regard was given to the testimony in
 
either the permanent custody proceeding or the provisional custody file with respect to the
 
deterioration of the social, family and educational environment of the girls since the mother
 
began to cohabit with her homosexual partner, or to the possibility that the girls could be
 
the target of social discrimination arising from this fact”; ii) “the testimony of persons close
 
to the girls, such as the house maids, refers to games and attitudes of the girls that reflect
 
confusion about the sexuality of the mother, which they could have perceived in the new
 
cohabitation scheme at their home”; iii) Ms. Atala “put her own interests before those of her
 
daughters when she chose to begin to live with a same sex partner, at the same home
 
where she raised and cared for her daughters, separately from the girls' father" and iv) “the
 
70 Appeal complaint and petition for injunction filed by the Mr. López Allendes, April 5, 2004 (File of
 
appendices to the application, volume V, pages 2652 to 2655). 71 Appeal complaint and petition for injunction filed by the Mr. López Allendes, April 5, 2004 (File of
 
appendices to the application, volume V, page 2654). 72 Cf. Granting of injunction by the Supreme Court of Chile, April 7, 2004 (File of appendices to the
 
application, volume V, page 2666).
 
73 Cf. Decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (File of
 
appendices to the application, volume V, appendix 22, pages 2669 to 2677).
 
22
 
potential confusion over sexual roles that could be caused in them by the absence from the
 
home of a male father and his replacement by another person of the female gender poses a
 
risk to the integral development of the children from which they must be protected.”
 
57. The Court also deemed the girls to be in a “situation of risk” that placed them in a
 
“vulnerable position in their social environment, since clearly their unique family
 
environment differs significantly from that of their school companions and acquaintances in
 
the neighborhood where they live, exposing them to ostracism and discrimination, which
 
would also affect their personal development.” Therefore, the Court felt that the conditions
 
described constitute “just cause” in accordance with Article 225 of the Civil Code, justifying
 
awarding custody to the father, given that the current situation “brings with it the risk of
 
harm, which could become irreversible for the interests of the minors, whose protection
 
should have preference over any other consideration.” The Court concluded that the
 
challenged judges failed by “not having strictly evaluated the evidence in the proceeding”
 
and by “having passed over the preferred right of the minors to live and grow within the
 
bosom of a family that is structured normally and appreciated in the social environment,
 
according to the proper traditional model, and have incurred serious fault or abuse, which
 
must be corrected through admission of the instant complaint appeal.”74
 
58. The two judges of the Chamber of the Supreme Court who voted to reject the
 
remedy of complaint put forward some arguments regarding the nature of that remedy.
 
75 In
 
addition, the dissenting judges deemed that, in accordance with Article 225 and the
 
preference it gives to the mother for the care of children in case of separation, “the judge
 
cannot change the general rule of where to place the care of the children based on arbitrary
 
judgments or unjustified, frivolous or ambiguous grounds, but rather only when a restrictive
 
examination of the legal standard and the accompanying evidence shows an “essential”
 
interest of the child.”76
 
B. Prior considerations
 
1. Prior consideration on the matter of the case before the Inter-American Court
 
74 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004 (File of appendices to the application,
 
volume V, page 2670, 2671, 2672, 2673).
 
75 In particular, they indicated that “it is not a procedural remedy that empowers this Court to resolve all
 
factual and legal issues presented by the parties in the case. As is fully known and in accordance with Article 545 of
 
the Organic Code of the Courts, the complaint appeal is a disciplinary remedy, the exclusive purpose of which is to
 
correct faults or serious abuses committed in the issuance of a jurisdictional ruling, through a) invalidation of the
 
ruling and b) the imposition of disciplinary measures on the judges who committed the serious fault or abuse
 
contained in the ruling being voided. Then and discarding as a legal imperative the possibility that the complaint
 
appeal might mean, in this Supreme Court, the opening of a third instance – that our procedural system does not
 
accept – or that it was a suitable means for imposing debatable opinions or interpretations, it is appropriate to
 
examine whether the judges being challenged have committed some serious fault or abuse by granting their
 
mother, Jacqueline Karen Atala Riffo, the care of her three minor daughters, M., V., and R., aged 10, 8, and 4”.
 
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004, dissenting votes of Judges Jose Benquis C. and
 
Orlando Álvarez H. (File of appendices to the application, volume V, pages 2673 and 2674). 76 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004, dissenting votes of Judges Jose Benquis
 
C. and Orlando Álvarez H. (File of appendices to the application, volume V, page 2675). In said analysis, the
 
judges considered that: i) “the record did not provide any history on the basis of which it could be speculated that
 
the mother […] had mistreated or neglected her daughters” and ii) the “expert opinions that appear in the record
 
from both psychologists and social workers indicate that the mother’s sexuality does not infringe the rights of the
 
girls, nor does it deprive her of the exercise of her right as a mother, since from a psychological or psychiatric
 
perspective, in the judgment of those experts, this is an absolutely normal person”. Therefore, the judges conclude
 
that “by depriving the mother, based solely on her sexual choice, of the custody of her minor daughters, – as the
 
father ha[d] requested based on clearly subjective assessments – means imposing both on the daughters and on
 
their mother an unnamed sanction that is outside the margin of the law, in addition to being discriminatory”.
 
23
 
Arguments of the parties
 
59. The Commission argued that the present case “refers to discrimination and arbitrary
 
interference in the private life of [Ms.] Atala, which occurred in the context of a judicial
 
proceeding regarding the custody and care of her three daughters.” This, in consideration of
 
the fact that [Ms.] Atala’s sexual orientation, and particularly the expression of that
 
orientation in her lifestyle, were allegedly the main grounds for the decisions taken to
 
remove custody of her daughters.”
 
60. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s general arguments, adding
 
that “the proceedings brought before the Inter-American System […] have not sought, nor
 
do they seek, to reopen the custody proceedings and use the Inter-American System as a
 
fourth instance.” Furthermore, they argued that “the State presented to this […] Court
 
reasons that the Supreme Court did not express in its decision on the remedy of complaint,
 
basing itself on documents that the Supreme Court had knowledge of and rejected in its
 
ruling.”
 
61. For its part, the State argued that “it is not true that the reason why Chilean
 
courts decided to take custody from the mother to hand it over to the father in the case of
 
the López Atala girls was the sexual orientation” of Ms. Atala. Specifically, the State alleged
 
that “the purpose of the custody trial in the case of López with Atala was not to declare the
 
disqualification of the mother, but to determine if the father or mother offered better
 
conditions to ensure the well-being of the three girls.” Accordingly, the State argued that
 
“[i]t is not true that the grounds for the mentioned decisions were the mother’s sexual
 
orientation or its mere expression. On the contrary, from the tenor of these [decisions] it
 
can be concluded […] that these are based on the higher interest of the child, and, within
 
that context, the defendant’s sexual orientation was considered, among other
 
circumstances, in the measure that its expression had specific adverse effects on the girls’
 
well-being.” According to the State, “the judgment issued by the Supreme Court ruled that
 
the lower courts had incurred in serious misconduct or abuse in violating the rules on the
 
assessment of evidence, […] since […] said courts did not weigh the overall merits of all the
 
evidence presented.”
 
62. In general terms, the State argued that, in the custody proceeding “there [was]
 
abundant evidence […] that prove[d]… that the father offered better conditions for the well-
 
being” of the girls. Specifically, the State argued, that “there was compelling evidence that
 
showed that the defendant had an intensely self-centered attitude and personal
 
characteristics that made it difficult for her to adequately exercise a maternal role,
 
circumstances that led to the conclusion that the mother did not offer a suitable
 
environment for the development of her daughters.”
 
63. On the other hand, the State argued that “regarding the father there was
 
considerable evidence […] that prove[d]: i) his dedication and attention to the care of his
 
daughters; ii) his skills in their upbringing; iii) the favorable environment he offered for the
 
well-being of his daughters, and iv) the positive relationship that existed between the girls
 
and the claimant’s partner.” Furthermore, the State noted that upon examining the
 
evidence in the case file, it would be clear that the decision regarding provisional custody
 
“also took into account matters other than the aforesaid sexual orientation, such as
 
determining whether the father or the mother offered a greater degree of commitment and
 
care to the girls.”
 
Considerations of the Court
 
 
24
 
64. From the arguments presented by the State, and from the evidence contained
 
in the case file, the Court considers that at the custody trial the following aspects were
 
discussed, inter alia: i) the sexual orientation of Ms. Atala; ii) Ms. Atala’s personality; iii) the
 
alleged damage caused to the girls, and iv) the alleged precedence given by Ms. Atala to
 
her interests. In addition, with respect to the girls’ father, arguments were presented in
 
favor and against the question of whether he could offer them greater well-being. The State
 
considered that the Inter-American Court should analyze all the evidence examined during
 
the custody trial and not only the judgments issued by the domestic courts.
 
65. In this regard, the Court reiterates that international jurisdiction has a
 
subsidiary,77 reinforcing, and complementary78 role, and therefore does not perform the
 
duties of a “fourth instance” court. The Court is not an appeals body that must resolve
 
disagreements between parties regarding some aspects of the assessment of the evidence
 
or the application of domestic law in matters that do not directly concern compliance with
 
international human rights obligations. Thus, this Court has held that, in principle, “it is up
 
to the State courts to examine the facts and the evidence presented in individual cases.”79
 
66. Accordingly, it is not up to this Court to determine whether the mother or the
 
father offered the three girls a better home, or to assess the evidence to that end, since this
 
is outside the scope of the present case, whose purpose is to determine whether or not the
 
judicial authorities have fulfilled their obligations under the Convention. Similarly, and based
 
on the subsidiary nature of the Inter-American system, the Court is not competent to issue
 
a ruling on the custody of the three girls M., V. and R., since this is a matter exclusively for
 
Chile’s domestic courts. Therefore, the current custody of the minors is not the object of
 
this case.
 
2. Prior consideration on the participation of the girls M., V. and R.
 
67. In the Decision of November 29, 2011 (supra para 12) the Court noted that the
 
file contained no specific statements by the daughters M., V. and R. as to whether or not
 
they agreed with the representation exercised by either of their parents or whether they
 
wished to be considered as alleged victims in this case. The Court pointed out that although
 
there were two briefs in which both the mother and the father stated that they were acting
 
on behalf of the three girls before this Court, the position of the mother and the father did
 
not necessarily represent the girls’ best interests.
 
68. Furthermore, in its Decision, the Court stated that children exercise their rights
 
progressively, as they develop a greater degree of independence, and for this reason during
 
early childhood their relatives act on their behalf. Clearly, the level of physical and
 
intellectual development, experience and information varies widely among children.
 
Therefore, when the hearing was held in accordance with the aforementioned Decision
 
77 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections,
 
Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66 and Case of Cabrera
 
García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November
 
26 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 16. 78 The Preamble to the American Convention states that international protection is “in the form of a
 
convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.” See
 
also, The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and
 
75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 31; The Expression "Laws" in Article
 
30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para.
 
26, and Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61. 79 Cabrera, para. 16. Case Nogueira of Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment
 
of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80 and Case Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 77,
 
para. 16.
 
25
 
(supra para. 13), it was taken into account that the three girls were then aged 12, 13 and
 
17 years of age and that there might be differences in their views and in the level of
 
personal independence for each of the girls to exercise her rights. In the instant case, the
 
Court heard two of the girls on February 8, 2012. (supra para. 13).
 
69. During the hearing, the Secretariat staff was accompanied by the psychiatrist María
 
Alicia Espinoza80. Prior to commencing the proceeding, the delegation of the Secretariat of
 
the Court held a prior meeting with the psychiatrist, consisting of an exchange of ideas, in
 
order to ensure that the information provided was accessible and appropriate for the girls.
 
Taking into account the international standards on a child’s right to be heard (infra paras.
 
196 to 200), the girls M. and R. were, in the first place, informed jointly by the staff of the
 
Secretariat of their right to be heard, the effects or consequences that their opinions might
 
have in the dispute in this case, the position and arguments of the parties in the present
 
case. They were also asked whether they wished to continue participating in the proceeding.
 
Subsequently, instead of conducting a unilateral examination, a conversation was held with
 
each girl separately, in order to provide the girls with an appropriate environment of trust.
 
During the proceeding neither of the parents and neither of the parties were present.
 
Furthermore, the proceeding conducted with the girls was private, due to the request, both
 
by the Commission and by the representatives in this case, that the identity of the girls
 
remain confidential (supra note 3), and to the need to protect the girls’ best interest and
 
their right to privacy. In addition, the girls expressly requested that everything said by them
 
during the meeting be kept in the strictest confidence.
 
70. During the proceeding of February 8, 2012, the girls M. and R. said they were
 
aware of and understood the matters related to the three alleged violations in which they
 
were presented as alleged victims in the present case (infra paras. 150, 176, 178 and 201).
 
From the statements made by the two girls and bearing in mind the progressive nature of
 
children’s rights, the Court noted that the two girls had expressed freely and independently
 
their own views and judgments regarding the facts of the case that concern them, as well as
 
some of their expectations and interests in the resolution of this case. Therefore, the Court
 
shall consider them as alleged victims in the case at hand (infra paras. 150, 176, 178 and
 
208).
 
71. As mentioned previously, the girl V. did not participate in the hearing for
 
reasons of force majeure (supra para. 13). Based on the preceding considerations, the
 
Court finds no grounds to consider that the girl V. is not in the same situation as her sisters
 
(infra paras. 150, 176, 178 and 208). However, for the purposes of reparations, the
 
competent national authority for children must privately confirm the girl V’s free opinion
 
regarding whether she wishes to be considered as an injured party.
 
C. The right to equality and the prohibition of discrimination
 
Arguments of the parties
 
72. Regarding the alleged violation of Articles 2481 and 1(1)82 of the American
 
Convention the Commission argued that “it is widely acknowledged in the American States
 
80 In its brief of February 3, 2012 the State presented its observations concerning the participation of the
 
psychiatrist Espinoza in the proceeding. On February 6, 2012, following the instructions of the President of the
 
Court, the parties were informed that psychiatrist Espinoza had been designated to accompany the delegation of
 
the Secretariat, if necessary. Likewise, the record sent to the parties indicated that although the support of
 
psychiatrist Espinoza had been contemplated in this case, this was not necessary. 81 Article 24 of the American Convention (Right to Equal Protection) stipulates that:
 
26
 
that discrimination based on sexual orientation is forbidden.” It noted that “sexual
 
orientation […] was the grounds for the Supreme Court’s decision,” which presumably
 
determined that Ms. Atala “should not have custody of her daughters [given that] she lived
 
with a person of the same sex. The Supreme Court added that “a distinction was made to
 
the detriment of [Ms.] Atala regarding the application of relevant legal instruments for the
 
determination of family matters, based on the expression of her sexual orientation and her
 
decision to form a couple and establish a life with her [partner].” It also noted that the
 
“provisional custody decision […] was also a distinction based on Ms. Atala’s sexual
 
orientation.” Furthermore, it stated that “in comparative constitutional law the definition of
 
“suspect category has been used” and, consequently, a strict scrutiny test has been applied
 
to cases related to sexual orientation.”
 
73. The representatives pointed out that the States “signed the American
 
Convention with an open clause of non-discrimination, and therefore they cannot now claim
 
that their level of social and political development prevents them from understanding that
 
sexual orientation is included as a category for which discrimination is prohibited.” They also
 
alleged that the “decision in the remedy of complaint is […] a judgment of scrutiny of [Mrs.]
 
Atala and her private life, without considering her parenting skills, which was the issue that
 
needed to be considered. They added that “the scrutiny judgment [was not applied] to the
 
life of [Mr.] López, about which nothing is known, questioned or investigated, nor of his
 
parental skills.” Therefore, they consider that “this mere fact constitutes a difference in
 
treatment, which is not contemplated by Chilean Law and is clearly prohibited by
 
international law.” Furthermore, they alleged that the “Supreme Court of Chile […] created a
 
category of persons who, by their very nature, regardless of their behavior, would not be
 
able to take care of their own children, by virtue of being associated with situations of
 
mistreatment and neglect.”
 
74. The State argued that “the [Inter-American] System [of Human Rights] needs the
 
credibility and trust of the Member States. A relationship based on mutual trust could be
 
affected if the Court assumes an excessively regulatory role, without considering the views
 
of the majority of the States.” The State argued that “upon signing [the American
 
Convention], the Member States agreed to abide by its provisions. Although the legal
 
interpretation may be flexible and the language of human rights acknowledges their
 
progressive development, the States gave their consent to a notion of human rights that
 
had certain types of violations in mind, and not others that did not exist at the time. If it
 
should be necessary to extend the scope of the agreement to include matters on which
 
there is not a minimum consensus, the [American Convention] itself establishes a procedure
 
for incorporating protocols that protect other rights.”
 
75. Likewise, the State pointed out that “sexual orientation was not a suspect category
 
on which there was consensus in 2004,” when the Supreme Court issued its judgment in the
 
 
All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to
 
equal protection before the law.
 
82 Article 1(1)of the American Convention (Obligation to Respect Rights) states that:
 
The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized
 
herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction and free and full exercise of those
 
rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color sex, language, religion,
 
political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth or any other social
 
condition.
 
27
 
present case. It argued that “it would not be appropriate to demand [that the Supreme
 
Court of Chile] pass a strict scrutiny test for a category on which the Inter-American
 
consensus is recent.” It added that “the establishment of a “suspect super-category”, as the
 
sexual orientation of one of the parents would be in this case, and other similar ones, may
 
end up shifting the focus of a family law trial into a matter that gives priority to
 
consideration of the parents’ rights, to the detriment of the child’s best interest in the
 
specific case.”
 
76. Finally, the State argued that “having declared the mother legally competent, the
 
decision to accept the custody petition filed by the father and based on the girls’ best
 
interest and well-being is not arbitrary.” It also indicated that “it is not true that the grounds
 
for these decisions were based on the mother’s sexual orientation or on its mere
 
expression” and that “the [mother’s] sexual orientation was considered, among other
 
factors, to the extent that its expression had specific adverse effects on the girls´ best
 
interest.
 
Considerations of the Court
 
77. To resolve these controversies, the Court will examine 1) the scope of the right to
 
equality and non-discrimination; 2) sexual orientation as a category protected by Article
 
1(1)of the American Convention; 3) whether in this case there was a difference in treatment
 
based on sexual orientation; 4) whether said difference in treatment constitutes
 
discrimination, for which purpose the Court will strictly assess the reasons given to justify
 
said difference in treatment, taking into consideration the children’s best interest and the
 
alleged risk and damage to the girls.
 
1. Right to equality and non-discrimination
 
78. The Court has established that Article 1(1) of the Convention is a regulation of a
 
general nature, whose content extends to all the provisions of the treaty and it establishes
 
the obligation of the States Parties to respect and guarantee the full and free exercise of the
 
rights and freedoms acknowledged therein “without any discrimination”. That is to say,
 
whatever the origin or form it assumes, any treatment that may be considered
 
discriminatory regarding the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed in the Convention is
 
per se incompatible with it83.
 
79. Regarding the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination, the Court
 
has stated84 that “the notion of equality springs directly from the oneness of the human
 
family and is linked to the essential dignity of the individual. That principle cannot be
 
reconciled with the notion that a given group has the right to privileged treatment because
 
of its perceived superiority. It is equally irreconcilable with that notion to characterize a
 
group as inferior and treat it with hostility or otherwise subject it to discrimination in the
 
83 Cf. Proposed Amendment to the Political Constitution of Costa Rica related to Naturalization. Advisory
 
Opinion OC-4/84, January 19 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53 and Case of Indigenous Community Xákmok Kásek. v.
 
Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, para. 268.
 
84 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, para. 55
 
28
 
enjoyment of rights which are accorded to others not so classified.” The Court’s case law
 
has also indicated that at the present stage of development of international law, the
 
fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the realm of jus
 
cogens. The juridical framework of national and international public order rests on this
 
principle and permeates the entire legal system.85
 
80. Moreover, the Court has mentioned that “the States must abstain from carrying
 
out any action that, in any way, directly or indirectly, is aimed at creating situations of de
 
jure or de facto discrimination.”86 The States are obliged “to take affirmative measures to
 
reverse or change discriminatory situations that exist in their societies to the detriment of a
 
specific group of persons. This implies the special obligations to protect that the State must
 
exercise with regard to acts and practices of third parties who, with its tolerance or
 
acquiescence, create, maintain or promote discriminatory situations.”87
 
81. The American Convention, like the International Covenant on Civil and Political
 
Rights, does not include an explicit definition of the concept of “discrimination.” Based on
 
the definitions of discrimination in Article 1(1) of the International Convention on the
 
Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination88 and Article 1(1) of the Convention on the
 
Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women,89 the Human Rights Committee of
 
the United Nations has defined discrimination as:
 
…any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on certain motives, such as race, color,
 
gender, language, religion, a political or any other opinion, the national or social origin, property, birth or
 
any other social condition, that seeks to annul or diminish the acknowledgment, enjoyment, or exercise, in
 
conditions of equality, of the human rights and fundamental freedoms to which every person is entitled.90
 
82. The Court reiterates that while the general obligation of Article 1(1) refers to the
 
State’s duty to respect and guarantee “without discrimination” the rights included in the
 
American Convention, Article 24 protects the right to “equal protection before the law” 91.
 
That is, Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits discrimination, by law or de facto,
 
not only with regard to the rights enshrined in said treaty, but also in regard to all laws
 
85 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, of
 
September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 101 and Case Indigenous Community Xákmok Kásek, supra note 83,
 
para. 269. 86 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 85, para. 103 and Case of Indigenous Community Xákmok
 
Kásek, supra note 83, para. 271 87 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 85 para. 104; Case of Indigenous Community Xákmok Kásek,
 
supra note 83, para. 271; and UN, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, Non- discrimination,
 
November 10, 1989, CCPR/C/37, para. 6.
 
88 Article 1(1)of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination states:
 
“In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination " shall men any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference
 
based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing
 
the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
 
political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
 
89 Article 1(1)of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against
 
Women states: “For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "discrimination against women " shall men
 
any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or
 
nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of
 
equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural,
 
civil or any other field”.
 
90 United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, Non-discrimination, November 10,
 
1989, CCPR/C/37, para. 6.
 
91 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, paras. 53 and 54 and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v.
 
Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 174.
 
 
29
 
approved by the State and their application. In other words, if a State discriminates in the
 
respect for or guarantee of a right contained in the Convention, it will be failing to comply
 
with its obligation under in Article 1(1) and the substantive right in question. If, on the
 
contrary, the discrimination refers to unequal protection by domestic laws, the fact must be
 
analyzed in light of Article 24 of the American Convention.
 
92
 
2. Sexual orientation as a category protected by Article 1(1) of the American
 
Convention
 
83. The Court has established, as has the European Human Rights Court, that
 
human rights treaties are living instruments, whose interpretation must go hand in hand
 
with evolving times and current living conditions93 This evolving interpretation is consistent
 
with the general rules of interpretation set forth in Article 29 of the American Convention, as
 
well as those established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.94
 
84. In this regard, when interpreting the words “any other social condition” of
 
Article 1(1)of the Convention, it is always necessary to choose the alternative that is most
 
favorable to the protection of the rights enshrined in said treaty, based on the principle of
 
the rule most favorable to the human being95
 
85. According to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the specific criteria by
 
virtue of which discrimination is prohibited do not constitute an exhaustive or limitative list,
 
but merely illustrative. Indeed, the wording of said article leaves open the criteria with the
 
inclusion of the term “another social condition,” allowing for the inclusion of other categories
 
that have not been explicitly indicated. Consequently, the Court should interpret the term
 
“any other social condition” of Article 1(1) of the Convention in the context of the most
 
favorable option for the human being and in light of the evolution of fundamental rights in
 
contemporary international law96.
 
86. In this regard, in the Inter-American system, the General Assembly of the
 
Organization of American States (hereinafter the OAS) has approved, since 2008, in its
 
annual meetings four successive resolutions referring to the protection of persons against
 
discriminatory treatment based on their sexual orientation, demanding the adoption of
 
specific measures for an effective protection against discriminatory acts.97
 
92 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“Corte Primera Contencioso Administrativo”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary
 
Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209 and Case
 
Barbani Duarte et al., supra note 91, para. 174. 93 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due
 
Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 114 and Case of the Mapiripán
 
Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para.
 
106. In the European Court see ECHR, Case of Tyrer v. United Kingdom, (No. 5856/72), Ruling of April 25, 1978,
 
para. 31.
 
94 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 93, para. 114 and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia,
 
supra note 93, para. 106. 95 Cf. Compulsory Membership for Journalists (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights).
 
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 52, and Case of Mapiripán Massacre, supra
 
note 93, para. 106. 96 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 93, para. 115.
 
97 Cf. AG/RES. 2653 (XLI-O/11), Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, approved at the
 
fourth plenary session, held on June 7, 2011 (“THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY […] RESOLVES: 1. To condemn
 
discrimination against persons by reason of their sexual orientation and gender identity, and to urge States, within
 
the parameters of the legal institutions of their domestic systems, to adopt the necessary measures to prevent,
 
sanction and eradicate such discrimination”); AG/RES. 2600 (XL-O/10), Human rights, sexual orientation and
 
gender identity, approved at the fourth plenary session, held on June 8, 2010 (“THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY […]
 
RESOLVES: 1. To condemn discrimination against persons by reason of their sexual orientation and gender
 
 
30
 
87. With regard to the inclusion of sexual orientation as a forbidden category of
 
discrimination, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that sexual orientation is
 
“another condition” mentioned in Article 1498 of the European Convention on Human Rights
 
that forbids discriminatory treatments.99 Specifically, in the Case of Salgueiro da Silva
 
Mouta v. Portugal, the European Court concluded that sexual orientation is “a concept
 
covered by Article 14 of the European Convention. It also reiterated that the list of
 
categories in said article has illustrative purposes and is not exhaustive.100 Recently, in the
 
Case of Clift v. United Kingdom, the European Court reiterated that sexual orientation, as
 
one of the categories that may be included under “another condition”, is another specific
 
example of those found on said list, which are considered as personal characteristics in the
 
sense that they are innate or inherent to the person.101
 
88. In the context of the universal system for the protection of human rights, the
 
Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights have
 
classified sexual orientation as one of the categories of forbidden discrimination considered
 
in Article 2(1)102 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article
 
 
identity, and to urge states, within the parameters of the legal institutions of their domestic systems, to adopt the
 
necessary measures to prevent, punish, and eradicate such discrimination. 2. To condemn acts of violence and
 
human rights violations committed against persons because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, and to
 
urge States to prevent and investigate these acts and violations and to ensure due judicial protection for victims on
 
an equal footing and that the perpetrators are brought to justice. 3. To encourage the member states to consider,
 
within the parameters of the legal institutions of their domestic systems, adopting public policies against
 
discrimination by reason of sexual orientation and gender identity.”); AG/RES. 2504 (XXXIX-O/09), Human Rights,
 
sexual orientation and gender identity, approved in the fourth plenary session, held on June 4, 2009 (“THE
 
GENERAL ASSEMBLY […] RESOLVES: 1.To condemn acts of violence and human rights violations committed against
 
individuals by reason sexual orientation and gender identity. 2. Urge States to prevent and investigate these acts
 
and violations and to ensure due judicial protection for victims on an equal footing and that the perpetrators are
 
brought to justice”); AG/RES. 2435 (XXXVIII-O/08), Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity,
 
approved at the fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008 (“THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY […] RESOLVES: 1.To
 
express concern over acts of violence and human rights violations perpetrated against individuals by reason of their
 
sexual orientation and gender identity”).
 
98 Article 14 European Convention: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention
 
shall be secured without discrimination on any ground, such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or
 
other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
 
99 Cf. ECHR, Case Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, (No. 33290/96), Judgment of December 21, 1999.
 
Final, March 21, 2000, para. 28; Case L. and V. v. Austria (No. 39392/98 and 39829/98), Judgment of January 9,
 
2003. Final, April 9, 2003, para. 45; Case S.L. v. Austria, (No. 45330/99), Judgment of January 9, 2003. Final,
 
April 9, 2003, para. 37; Case E.B. V. France, (No. 43546/02), Judgment of January 22, 2008, para. 50.
 
100 Cf. ECHR, Caso Salgueiro da Silva Mouta, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 28 (“the
 
applicant’s sexual orientation […] [is] a concept that is undoubtedly covered by Article 14 of the Convention. The
 
Court reiterates in that connection that the list set out in that provision is illustrative and not exhaustive, as is
 
shown by the words “any ground such as”., See also ECHR, Case of Fretté v. France, (No. 36515/97), Judgment of
 
February 26, 2002. Final, May 26, 2002, para. 32; Cf. ECHR, Case Kozak v. Poland, (No. 13102/02), Judgment of
 
March 2, 2010. Final, June 2, 2010, para. 92; ECHR, Case J.M. v. United Kingdom, (No. 37060/06), Judgment of
 
September 28, 2010. Final, December 28, 2010, para. 55 and ECHR, Case Alekseyev v. Russia, (No. 4916/07,
 
25924/08 and 14599/09), Judgment of October 21, 2010. Final, April 11, 2011, para. 108. (“The Court reiterates
 
that sexual orientation is a concept covered by 14”). 101 Cf. ECHR, Case Clift v. United Kingdom, (No. 7205/07), Judgment of July 13, 2010. Final, November 22,
 
2010, para. 57 (“the Court has considered to constitute [`] other status [´] characteristics which, like some of the
 
specific examples listed in the article, can be said to be personal in the sense that they are innate or inherent.
 
“However, in finding violations of Article 14 in a number of other cases, the Court has accepted that “status”
 
existed where the distinction relied upon did not involve a characteristic which could be said to be innate or
 
inherent, and thus “personal” in the sense discussed above”). 102 Article 2(1): Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all
 
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without
 
distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
 
origin, economic status, birth or any other social condition.
 
31
 
2(2)103 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. In this
 
regard, in the case of Toonen v. Australia the Human Rights Committee indicated that the
 
reference to the category “gender” would include the sexual orientation of persons.104
 
Likewise, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has expressed its concern regarding
 
several discriminatory situations related to people’s sexual orientation, which it has
 
expressed repeatedly in its final observations to the reports presented by the States.105
 
89. For its part, the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has
 
determined that sexual orientation may be included in “another social condition”106.
 
Similarly, in the context of their general observations and recommendations, the Committee
 
on the Rights of the Child,107 the Committee against Torture,108 and the Committee on the
 
103 Article 2(2): The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated
 
in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language,
 
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
 
104 United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992,
 
CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992, April 4, 1992, para. 8.7 (“The State party has sought the Committee's guidance as to
 
whether sexual orientation may be considered as "other status" for the purposes of Article 26. The same issue
 
could arise under Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The Committee confines itself to noting, however, that in
 
its view, the reference to "sex" in Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 is to be taken as including sexual orientation”).
 
Cf. X V. Colombia, Communication No. 1361/2005, CCPR/C/89/D/1361/2005, May 14, 2007, para. 7.2. (“The
 
Committee recalls its earlier jurisprudence that the prohibition against discrimination under Article 26 comprises
 
also discrimination based on sexual orientation”). In this regard, the Human Rights Committee, in Edward Young v.
 
Australia, Communication No. 941/2000, CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000, September 18, 2003, para. 10.4.; see also
 
United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Final comments, Poland, CCPR/C/79/Add.110, July 25, 1999, para. 23.
 
105 Cf., inter alia, United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations, Chile,
 
CCPR/C/CHL/CO/5, April 17, 2007, para. 16 (“While it observes with satisfaction that the laws criminalizing
 
homosexual relations between consenting adults have been repealed, the Committee remains concerned about the
 
discrimination The State Party should guarantee equal rights to all individuals, as established in the Covenant,
 
regardless of their sexual orientation, including equality before the law and in access to health care. It should also
 
launch awareness-raising programs to combat social prejudice”); Concluding observations, Barbados,
 
CCPR/C/BRB/CO/3, May 14, 2007, para. 13 (“The Committee expresses its concern over discrimination against
 
homosexuals in the State Party and, in particular over the criminalizing of consensual sexual acts between adults of
 
the same sex (Art. 26)”); Concluding observations, United States of America, CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, December
 
18, 2006, para. 25 (“It also notes with concern the failure to outlaw employment discrimination on the basis of
 
sexual orientation in many states (Arts. 2 and 26). The State Party should acknowledge its legal obligation under
 
Articles 2 and 26 to ensure to everyone the rights recognized by the Covenant, as well as equal protection before
 
the law, without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”); Concluding observations, El Salvador,
 
CCPR/CO/78/SLV, August 22, 2003, para. 16 (“The Committee expresses concern at the incidents of people being
 
attacked, or even killed, on account of their sexual orientation (Article 9), at the small number of investigations
 
mounted into such illegal acts, and at the current provisions (such as local “Contravention Orders”) used to
 
discriminate against people on account of their sexual orientation (Article 26).”
 
106 Cf. United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20. Non-
 
discrimination and economic, social and cultural rights (Article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on
 
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), E/C.12/GC/20, 2 of July of 2009, para. 32 (“any other social condition", as
 
stated in Article 2.2 of the Covenant, includes sexual orientation”). Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
 
Rights, General Comment No. 18. The right to work, E/C.12/GC/18, February 6, 2006, para. 12 (“Under paragraph
 
2 of Article 2, as well as Article 3, the Covenant prohibits any discrimination in access to and maintenance of
 
employment for reasons of […] sexual orientation”); General Comment No. 15. The right to water (Articles 11 and
 
12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), E/C.12/2002/11, of January 20, 2003,
 
para. 13 (“the Covenant prohibits any discrimination for reasons of […] sexual orientation”); General Comment No.
 
14. The right to enjoy the highest attainable level of health (Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic,
 
Social and Cultural Rights), E/C.12/2000/4, August 11, 2000, para. 18 (“By virtue of the provisions in paragraph 2
 
of Article 2 and in Article 3, the Covenant proscribes all discrimination in access to health care and the underlying
 
determinants of health, and to the means for their procurement, on the grounds of […] sexual orientation”).
 
107 Cf. United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 3 (2003). HIV/AIDS and
 
the rights of the child, CRC/GC/2003/3, of March 17, 2003, para. 8 (“of concern also is discrimination based on
 
sexual orientation”); General Comment No. 4 (2003). The health and development of adolescents in the context of
 
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CRC/GC/2003/4, July 21, 2003, para. 6 (“States Parties have the
 
32
 
Elimination of Discrimination against Women109 have made references to the inclusion of
 
sexual orientation as one of the prohibited categories for discrimination.
 
90. On December 22, 2008 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the
 
“Declaration on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity”, reaffirming the
 
“principle of non-discrimination, which requires that human rights apply equally to every
 
human being, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.”110 Likewise, on March 22,
 
2011 the “Joint statement on ending acts of violence and related human rights violations
 
based on sexual orientation and gender identity” was filed before the Human Rights Council
 
of the United Nations.111 On June 15, 2011 the Council approved a resolution on human
 
rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity in which it expressed its grave concern over
 
acts of violence and discrimination, in all the regions of the world, committed against
 
individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.112 The prohibition of
 
discrimination based on sexual orientation has also been highlighted in numerous reports by
 
special rapporteurs of the United Nations.113
 
 
obligation to ensure that all human beings under 18 enjoy all the rights set forth in the Convention without
 
discrimination (Art. 2), regardless of "race, color, sex, language, religion, or political or other opinion, national,
 
ethnic or social origin, property, birth, disability or other status". These grounds also cover sexual orientation”).
 
108 Cf. United Nations, Committee Against Torture, General Comment No. 2, Application of Article 2 by States
 
Parties, CAT/C/GC/2, of January 24, 2008 para. 20, 21 (“The principle of non-discrimination is a basic and general
 
principle in the protection of human rights and fundamental to the interpretation and application of the Convention.
 
[…] States Parties must ensure that, insofar as the obligations arising under the Convention are concerned, their
 
laws re in practice applied to all persons, regardless of their […] and sexual orientation”).
 
109 Cf. United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General
 
Recommendation No. 27 on women of age and the protection of their human rights, CEDAW/C/GC/27, December
 
16, 2010, para. 13 (“The discrimination experienced by older women is often multidimensional, with the age factor
 
compounding other forms of discrimination based on […] sexual orientation”); Draft of General Recommendation
 
Nº 28 in relation to Article 2 of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women,
 
CEDAW/C/GC/28, December 16, 2010, para. 18 (“The discrimination of based on sex and gender is inextricable
 
linked with other factors that affect women, such as race, ethnic origin, religion or belief, health, status, age, class,
 
caste, sexual orientation”).
 
110 Declaration on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, United Nations General Assembly,
 
A/63/635, December 22, 2008, para. 3.
 
111 Joint declaration on ending acts of violence and related human rights violations based on sexual
 
orientation and gender identity, presented by Colombia in the 16th session of the United Nations Human Rights
 
Council, March 22, 2011. Available at: <nowiki>http://www.iglhrc.org/binary-data/ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/494-1.pdf</nowiki>
 
112 United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolution regarding human rights, sexual orientation and gender
 
identity, A/HRC/17/L.9/Rev.1, June 15, 2011.
 
113 Cf., Among other reports, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of all persons to enjoy the highest
 
attainable standard of physical and mental health, E/CN.4/2004/49, February 16, 2004, paras. 32, 38
 
(“International human rights law proscribes all discrimination in access to health care and the underlying
 
determinants of health, and to the means for their procurement, on the grounds of …… sexual orientation [...]
 
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is impermissible under international human rights law”). See
 
also the Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, A/HRC/6/5, July 20, 2007, para. 28;
 
Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
 
intolerance, Mission to Brazil, E/CN.4/2006/16/Add.3, February 28, 2006, para. 40; Report of the Special
 
Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Integration of the human rights of women
 
and gender perspective: violence against women, Investigation into the links between violence against women and
 
HIV/AIDS, E/CN.4/2005/72, January 17, 2005, para. 27, 58; Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
 
summary or arbitrary executions, civil and political rights, in particular questions related to disappearances and
 
summary executions, E/CN.4/2003/3, January 13, 2003, paras.. 66, 67; Report provisional of la Special
 
Rapporteur of the Human rights Commission on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, A/57/138, July 2,
 
2002, para. 37; Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights defenders,
 
E/CN.4/2001/94, January 26, 2001, para. 89 g); Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers,
 
civil and political rights, in particular questions related to: the independence of the judicial branch, the
 
33
 
91. Bearing in mind the general obligations to respect and guarantee the rights
 
established in Article 1(1)of the American Convention, the interpretation criteria set forth in
 
Article 29 of that Convention, the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
 
Treaties, and the standards established by the European Court and the mechanisms of the
 
United Nations (supra paras. 83-90), the Inter-American Court establishes that the sexual
 
orientation and gender identity of persons is a category protected by the Convention.
 
Therefore, any regulation, act, or practice considered discriminatory based on a person’s
 
sexual orientation is prohibited. Consequently, no domestic regulation, decision, or practice,
 
whether by state authorities or individuals, may diminish or restrict, in any way whatsoever,
 
the rights of a person based on his or her sexual orientation.
 
92. With regard to the State’s argument that, on the date on which the Supreme Court
 
issued its ruling there was a lack of consensus regarding sexual orientation as a prohibited
 
category for discrimination, the Court points out that the alleged lack of consensus in some
 
countries regarding full respect for the rights of sexual minorities cannot be considered a
 
valid argument to deny or restrict their human rights or to perpetuate and reproduce the
 
historical and structural discrimination that these minorities have suffered114. The fact that
 
 
administration of justice, impunity, Mission to Brazil, E/CN.4/2005/60/Add.3, February 22, 2005, para. 28; Report
 
of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, A/56/156,
 
July 3, 2001, paras.. 17-25; Report on civil and political rights, in particular questions related to torture and
 
detention E/CN.4/2002/76, December 27, 2001, page. 14; Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other
 
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, E/CN.4/2004/56, December 23, 2003, para. 64; Report of the Special
 
Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and the use of children in pornography E/CN.4/2004/9,
 
January 5, 2004, para. 118; Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 7/2002 (Egypt),
 
E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.1, January 24, 2003, page. 72, para. 28. Within the framework of comparative law some
 
States explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in their Constitutions (for example Bolivia,
 
Ecuador, Kosovo, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden and Switzerland) or through laws, for example in matters of
 
family law, regarding granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. For example, in Argentina, Articles 2
 
and 4 of Law No. 26.618 of July 21, 2010 establish that: “Marriage shall have the same requirements and effects,
 
regardless of the fact that the spouses are of the same or of different sex” and "In marriages constituted by same-
 
sex couples, in the absence of an agreement, the judge shall decide [on custody] taking into consideration the best
 
interests of the child”; Uruguay approved Law No. 18.246 (Diario Oficial No. 27402, January 10, 2008), which
 
recognizes civil unions ("concubinary unions ") between same-sex couples. In 2009, Law No. 18.590, (Diario Oficial
 
No. 27837, 26 October 2009), authorized joint adoption by couples living in civil union.
 
114 According to different international and comparative law sources, this discrimination against the Lesbian, Gay,
 
Transsexual, Bisexual, and Intersexual (hereinafter “LGTBI”) is unacceptable because i) sexual orientation
 
constitutes an essential aspect of a person’s identity (infra para. 139). Likewise, ii) the LGTBI community has been
 
historically discriminated against and the use of stereotypes in treatment towards said community is common. Cf.
 
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of all persons to enjoy the highest level possible of physical and
 
mental health, E/CN.4/2004/49, February 16, 2004, para.33 (“discrimination and stigmatization continue to
 
represent a grave threat against the sexual and reproductive health of many groups, such as […] sexual
 
minorities,”.); Report of the Special Rapporteur on matters of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading
 
treatments, E/CN.4/2004/56, December 23, 2003, para. 64 (“The attitudes and beliefs derived from myths and
 
fears related to HIV/AIDS and sexuality contribute to stigmatization and discrimination against sexual minorities.
 
Moreover, the perception that members of these minorities do not respect sexual barriers or question the
 
predominant concepts of the role attributed to each gender seems to contribute to their vulnerability to torture as a
 
form of “punishing” their unaccepted behavior”). On the other hand, iii) they constitute a minority that faces
 
greater difficulty in removing discrimination in areas such as the legislative sphere, as well as avoiding negative
 
repercussions in the interpretation of regulations by officials of the executive or legislative branches and in access
 
to justice. Cf. Special Rapporteur on the independence of senior judges and attorneys, Civil and political rights,
 
especially matters related to: independence of the judiciary, the administration of justice, impunity, Mission to
 
Brazil, E/CN.4/2005/60/Add.3, February 22, 2005, para. 28 (“Transvestites, transsexuals, and homosexuals are
 
also frequently the victims of episodes of violence and discrimination. When they turn to the judicial system, they
 
frequently face the same prejudice and stereotypes of society reproduced there”); Constitutional Court of
 
Colombia, Judgment C-481 of September 9, 1998, Juridical Grounds, para. 24 (considering that homosexuals
 
constitute one of the minority groups traditionally discriminated). Finally, iv) sexual orientation does not constitute
 
a rational criterion for the rational and equal distribution or sharing of properties, rights, or social burdens. Cf.
 
Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-481 of September 9, 1998, para. 25. In this judgment, regarding the
 
34
 
this is a controversial issue in some sectors and countries, and that it is not necessarily a
 
matter of consensus, cannot lead this Court to abstain from issuing a decision, since in
 
doing so it must refer solely and exclusively to the stipulations of the international
 
obligations arising from a sovereign decision by the States to adhere to the American
 
Convention.
 
93. A right granted to all persons cannot be denied or restricted under any
 
circumstances based on their sexual orientation. This would violate Article 1(1) of the
 
American Convention. This inter-American instrument proscribes discrimination, in general,
 
including categories such as sexual orientation, which cannot be used as grounds for
 
denying or restricting any of the rights established in the Convention.
 
3. Difference in treatment based on sexual orientation
 
94. The Court notes that in order to prove that a distinction in treatment has occurred in
 
a particular decision, it is not necessary that the decision in its entirety be based
 
“fundamentally and solely” on the person’s sexual orientation. It is sufficient to confirm that,
 
to a certain extent, the person’s sexual orientation was taken into account, either explicitly
 
or implicitly, in adopting a specific decision.115
 
95. In the case at hand, it is alleged that discriminatory treatment occurred with respect
 
to two different facts in the custody process: the Judgment issued in the remedy of
 
complaint and the ruling on temporary custody. To determine whether there is a causal or
 
decisive link between the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile and the Juvenile
 
Court of Villarrica, and the sexual orientation of Ms. Atala, it is necessary to analyze the
 
arguments presented by the national judicial authorities, their actions, the language used,
 
and the context in which the judicial decisions were made, in order to determine whether
 
the difference in treatment was based on sexual orientation.
 
116 In this regard, in the Case of
 
Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, the European Court concluded that the domestic court,
 
in considering the father’s cohabitation with another man as such, made the petitioner’s
 
sexual orientation a decisive factor in the final judgment.
 
96. Regarding the context of the custody proceeding, the Court notes out that the
 
custody claim was filed under the supposition that Ms. Atala “[was] not capable of looking
 
after and taking care of [the three girls, given that] her new choice of sexual life together
 
with her lesbian relationship with another woman, [were] having […] harmful consequences
 
 
right of a public school to not be fired due to his homosexual condition, the Colombian Court stated that the
 
separation of the professor from his work was based “on a prejudice without any empirical support whatsoever,
 
which denotes the unfair stigmatization that has affected this population and that has been invoked to impose
 
burdens upon them or deprive them of rights, in detriment of their possibilities to participate in realms that are so
 
relevant for both social and economic life.” (para. 29) On its part, judgment C-507 of 1999 declared
 
unconstitutional a provision that declared homosexuality in the armed forces a disciplinary infraction. In judgment
 
C-373 of 2002 the Court declared unconstitutional a provision that established as a cause for disqualification to
 
exercise the position of notary having been punished at a disciplinary level for the infraction of homosexuality.
 
115 Cf. ECHR, Case of E.B. v. France, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., paras. 88 and 89
 
“notwithstanding the precautions taken by the Nancy Administrative Court of Appeal, and subsequently by the
 
Conseil d'Etat, to justify taking account of the applicant's “lifestyle”, the inescapable conclusion is that her sexual
 
orientation was consistently at the center of deliberations in her regard and omnipresent at every stage of the
 
administrative and judicial proceedings. […] The Court considers that the reference to the applicant's
 
homosexuality was, if not explicit, at least implicit. The influence of the applicant's avowed homosexuality on the
 
assessment of her application has been established and, having regard to the foregoing, was a decisive factor
 
leading to the decision to refuse her authorization to adopt”)
 
116 Cf. ECHR, Case of Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined.,
 
paras. 28 and 31 and Case of E.B., supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 85
 
35
 
on the development of these minors, since the mother ha[d] shown no interest whatsoever
 
in looking after and protecting […] the overall development of these girls.”117 Therefore, in
 
addition to other considerations, the custody process revolved around Ms. Atala’s sexual
 
orientation and the alleged effects that her living with her partner could have on the three
 
girls. Therefore, this consideration was central to the discussion between the parties and in
 
the main judicial decisions made during the proceeding (supra paras. 41 and 56).
 
97. Specifically, the Court finds that the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile invoked the
 
following reasons as grounds for the judgment: i) the “deterioration in the social, family,
 
and educational environment of the girls since the mother began to cohabit with her
 
homosexual partner” and the “effects that this cohabitation could have on the’ psychological
 
and emotional well-being of the daughters;” ii) the alleged “risk for the integral
 
development of the girls from which they must be protected” due to “the potential confusion
 
over sexual roles that could be caused in them by the absence from the home of a male
 
father and his replacement by another person of the female gender;” iii) the alleged
 
existence of “a situation of risk” that places them in a “vulnerable position in their social
 
environment,” due to the risk of social discrimination, iv) that Ms. Atala had allegedly put
 
“her own interests before those of her daughters when she chose to express her
 
homosexual status” 118. These arguments and the language used show a link between the
 
judgment and the fact that Ms. Atala lived with a partner of the same sex, which indicates
 
that the Supreme Court gave significant importance to Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation.
 
98. Regarding the provisional custody ruling, the Court finds verifies that the Juvenile
 
Court of Villarrica119 used the following arguments: i) that Ms. Atala allegedly put her own
 
interests before the well-being of her daughters (supra para. 41), and ii) that “in the
 
context of a heterosexual and traditional society” the father offered “more favorable
 
arguments on behalf of the girls’ best interests” (supra para. 41). In this regard, the Court
 
considers that, as with the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra para. 97), the provisional
 
custody decision was based mainly on Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation. Therefore, this Court
 
concludes that there was a difference in treatment based on this category.
 
99. To determine whether these differences in treatment constituted discrimination, the
 
following paragraphs analyze the justification given by the State for making such a
 
distinction in treatment, in other words, the supposed protection of the child’s best interest
 
and the alleged damage the girls had suffered as a consequence of their mother’s sexual
 
orientation.
 
4. The principle of the child’s best interest and assumptions of risk
 
Arguments of the parties
 
117 Custody claim filed before the Juvenile Court of Villarica of January, 14, 2003 (File of appendices to the
 
claim, volume V, appendix 1, page 2500).
 
118 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, pages 2669 to 2677).
 
119 The Court indicated that “as stated in Article 225 of the Civil Code, if parents live separately, the mother
 
will see to the personal care of the children, and in any case, when the interest of the child makes it necessary,
 
either due to abuse, lack of care, or any other aggravated cause, the Judge may hand over the personal care of the
 
children to the other parent.” It added that “the Judge is given the hard judicial task of deciding which of the
 
parents is most suitable to make effective the Right to Custody of the minors, for which it must turn to objective
 
parameters – as is the merits of the proceedings – and to a judgment of probability, deciding in an interlocutory
 
manner due to the urgency the well-being of the girls calls for, with which of the two parents it is convenient that
 
they stay.” Ruling in the provisional custody claim by the Juvenile Court of Villarica, May 2, 2003 (File of
 
appendices to the claim, volume V, pages 2559 to 2567)..
 
36
 
100. The Commission considered that a child’s best interest is “not only a legitimate aim,
 
but also a pressing social need,” but that “the lack of suitability or causal relationship
 
between the goal sought and the distinction [made]” is evident in the speculative and
 
abstract reasoning of the decisions.”
 
101. The Commission stated that “both judicial authorities [(the Supreme Court and the
 
Juvenile Court of Villarrica)] based their decisions on assumptions of risk derived from
 
prejudices and erroneous stereotypes regarding the characteristics and behavior of a given
 
social group.” In this regard, it argued that “the decision was based on the judges’
 
stereotyped conceptions of the nature and effects of relationships between people of the
 
same sex.”
 
102. The representatives argued that the girls’ best interest “would in fact, in theory […]
 
be a legitimate goal.” However, they stated that “it is not enough […] to argue a legitimate
 
goal for it to be one; the State has the obligation to prove that said goal is real.” In this
 
regard, they argued that “the State simply says it is protecting the girls but it does not
 
objectively offer grounds for the damage that was allegedly caused to the girls and,
 
therefore, the decision lacks a legitimate goal.”
 
103. The representatives also stated that “it is appropriate to consider whether complete
 
separation from the mother fulfills the stated objective of protecting the girls.” In this
 
regard, they argued that “it may be considered that it does, even though it does so a way
 
that does not satisfy the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness, since the level of intensity
 
with which the rights are affected is clearly very high, and this leads to violations of their
 
rights.” Specifically, the representatives indicated that the court decisions “separate[d] the
 
girls from their mother figure, their referent, their place of residence, schools, friends, and
 
pets.” Furthermore, the representatives noted that the State “rewrites the judgment it
 
would have wished the Supreme Court to write, but it is not the one that began this
 
proceeding.”
 
104. Regarding the provisional custody decision, the representatives argued that “it was
 
neither objective nor reasonable.” In addition, they pointed out that the “judges assumed
 
that, in the case of lesbian women, living with a partner is a selfish interest that can only
 
provide well-being to the mother.”
 
105. For its part, the State argued that, in the context of a custody suit “a priority [is
 
established] in favor of the child’s best interest over any other protected interest in dispute,
 
[therefore] it is clear that in a custody proceeding it is necessary to understand the
 
aforementioned interest as strong grounds for justifying a change in [a child’s] regimen of
 
personal care.” Specifically, the State argued that “the judgment of the Supreme Court
 
found that the lower courts had incurred in serious fault or abuse by violating the rules for
 
the assessment of evidence, affecting the girls’ best interest.” Likewise, the State indicated
 
that in the provisional custody decision “the court declared […] that it is the task of the
 
sentencing body to safeguard a child’s best interest and ensure his or her greatest well-
 
being […] and therefore it decided to grant provisional custody to the father.” Furthermore,
 
the State argued that “the decision on provisional custody, after assessing all the evidence
 
to date in the case [...] conclude[ed] that: i) the girls showed disturbances of a
 
psychological nature and emotional deficiencies […], and ii) that the father offered certainty
 
of an appropriate environment.”
 
106. The State argued that “as regards to the requirement of “suitability” to ensure that
 
the measures applied by States are not discriminatory, in order to comply with the scrutiny
 
37
 
test […] it would have been sufficient to have proven the harmful situation suffered by the
 
girls in the case.” Specifically, the State argued that “there is abundant evidence on record
 
proving: i) the specific adverse effects that the respondent’s expression of her sexual
 
orientation had on the well-being of her daughters, and ii) that the father offered better
 
conditions for their wellbeing, a matter in no way related to the defendant’s sexual
 
orientation.” The State also argued that “there is convincing evidence that the defendant
 
displayed an intensely self-centered attitude as well as personal characteristics that made it
 
difficult for her to properly exercise her role as a mother, circumstances that led to the
 
conclusion that the mother did not offer a suitable environment for the development of her
 
daughters.” Likewise, it stated that “there was abundant evidence on record, not only on
 
the negative effects that the respondent’s expression of her sexual orientation had on the
 
well-being of her daughters, but also on totally external circumstances, such as the
 
determination of whether the father or mother offered a better environment for the girls’
 
development and a greater degree of commitment and care toward them.”
 
Considerations of the Court
 
107. The Inter-American Court finds that, among its considerations, the Supreme Court of
 
Justice of Chile stated that “in all measures concerning [children] it is essential to consider
 
the child’s best interest over any other consideration and rights regarding their parents,
 
which could make it necessary to separate them from their parents.”120 For its part, the
 
Juvenile Court of Villarrica, in the provisional custody ruling, stated that “it is the sentencing
 
body’s task to ensure […] the child’s best interest, which implies conducting a preventive …
 
analysis leading to the ultimate purpose of any judicial ruling affecting a minor, which is
 
none other than seeking their greatest well-being.”121
 
108. The general purpose of protecting the child’s best interest is, in itself, a legitimate
 
aim and is also an imperative. Accordingly, the Court reiterates that the regulating principle
 
regarding children’s rights is based on the very dignity of the human being, on the
 
characteristics of children themselves, and on the need to foster their development, making
 
full use of their potential122. Likewise, it should be noted that the preamble of the
 
Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that children require “special care” and
 
Article 19 of the American Convention states that they must receive “special measures of
 
protection.” 123
 
109. Similarly, the Court finds that the determination of the child’s best interest in cases
 
involving the care and custody of minors must be based on an assessment of specific
 
parental behaviors and their negative impact on the well-being and development of the
 
child, or of any real and proven damage or risks to the child’s well-being and not those that
 
are speculative or imaginary. Therefore, speculations, assumptions, stereotypes, or
 
generalized considerations regarding the parents’ personal characteristics or cultural
 
preferences regarding the family’s traditional concepts are not admissible.124
 
120 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, pages 2670).
 
121 Ruling on the provisional custody claim by the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, May 2, 2003 (File of appendices
 
to the petition, volume V, page 2566).
 
122 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 August 28, 2002. Series A
 
No. 17, para. 56. In similar vein, see: Preamble of the American Convention.
 
123 Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, para. 60.
 
124 Cf., inter alia, in Australia: In the Marriage of C. and J.A. Doyle, (1992) 15 Fam. L.R. 274, 274, 277 (The
 
parent's lifestyle is of no relevance without a consideration of its consequences on the child's well-being); in the
 
38
 
110. In conclusion, the Inter-American Court notes that, “the child’s best interest” being
 
considered as a legitimate goal, in abstract terms, the mere reference to this purpose,
 
without specific proof of the risks or damage to the girls that could result from the mother’s
 
sexual orientation, cannot serve as a suitable measure to restrict a protected right, such as
 
the right to exercise all human rights without discrimination based on the person’s sexual
 
orientation.125 The child’s best interest cannot be used to justify discrimination against the
 
parents based on their sexual orientation. Therefore, the judge cannot take this social
 
condition into consideration as an element in a custody ruling.
 
111. A determination based on unfounded and stereotyped assumptions about the
 
parent’s capacity and suitability to ensure and promote the child’s well-being and
 
development is not appropriate for the purpose of guaranteeing the legitimate goal of
 
protecting the child’s best interest.
 
126 The Court finds that considerations based on
 
stereotypes of sexual orientation, that is, preconceptions regarding the attributes, behaviors
 
or characteristics of homosexuals or the impact these may have on children is not
 
admissible.127
 
112. Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that although the State provided evidence
 
concerning the specific arguments that the father could allegedly offer better environment
 
for his daughters during the custody proceeding, for the purposes of analyzing the suitability
 
of the measure, the Court will only take into consideration the evidence and arguments that
 
 
Philippines: Supreme Court of the Philippines, Joycelyn Pablo-Gualberto v. Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto, G.R. No.
 
156254 of June 28, 2005, stating that sexual preference of itself is not a sign of parental incompetence to exercise
 
the custody of minors (“sexual preference or moral laxity alone does not prove parental neglect or incompetence.
 
[...] To deprive the wife of custody, the husband must clearly establish that her moral lapses have had an adverse
 
effect on the welfare of the child or have distracted the offending spouse from exercising proper parental care”); in
 
South Africa: Constitutional Court of South Africa, Du Toit and Another v Minister of Welfare and Population
 
Development and Others (CCT40/01) [2002] ZACC 20; 2002 (10) BCLR 1006; 2003 (2) SA 198 (CC) (10
 
September 2002), permitting the adoption of minors by same-sex couples, considering that it will not affect the
 
child’s best interest, and Constitutional Court of South Africa, J and Another v Director General, Department of
 
Home Affairs and Others (CCT46/02) [2003] ZACC 3; 2003 (5) BCLR 463; 2003 (5) SA 621 (CC) (28 March 2003).
 
125 In similar vein, in a case on the withdrawal of the custody of a minor based on the mother’s religious
 
beliefs, the European Court of Human Rights criticized the lack of specific and direct evidence proving the impact
 
the religious beliefs had on the upbringing and the daily life of the children, for which reason it considered that the
 
domestic court had issued a judgment in abstract, and based on general considerations, without establishing a
 
relationship between the children’s lifestyle and the mother’s. The Court stated that “Although relevant, that
 
reasoning was not in the Court's view sufficient. 43. In those circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that there
 
was a reasonably proportionate relationship between the means employed and the legitimate aim pursued. ECHR,
 
Case of Palau-Martínez v. France, (No. 64927/01), Judgment of December 16, 2003. Final, March 16, 2004, paras.
 
42-43.
 
126 In this regard, the expert witness Jernow stated that “analysis of the child’s best interest […] cannot be
 
based on groundless assumptions or stereotypes about parental capacity” (Merits file, volume XI, page 5069).
 
Similarly, expert witness Wintemute stated that “discrimination based on the race, religion, sex or sexual
 
orientation of the child´s parent is never in the best interest of the child. What is in the best interest of the child is
 
a custody decision that considers the qualities of the two parents, without examining considerations that are
 
irrelevant, and that are often linked to social prejudices” […]A non-discriminatory custody decision should not refer
 
to the sexual orientation of either parent. It should focus solely on the parenting skills of each parent, what kind of
 
home they can provide, etc. There should be no need even to mention sexual orientation” (Merits file, volume XI,
 
pages 5355 and 5358). Similarly, at the public hearing, the expert witness García Méndez emphasized that “the
 
sexual conduct that courts have generally taken into account in cases of this nature, are sexual conducts that refer
 
to promiscuity, […] without any other type of consideration.”
 
127 On the concept of stereotypes, Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary
 
Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 401.
 
39
 
have been explicitly used by the Supreme Court or by the Juvenile Court of Villarica as
 
grounds for their decisions on provisional custody (supra paras. 41 and 56).
 
113. The Court notes that the Supreme Court of Justice mentioned four arguments
 
directly related to Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation: i) the alleged social discrimination suffered
 
by the three girls due to Ms. Atala’s expression of her sexual orientation128; ii) the girls’
 
alleged confusion regarding sexual roles as a consequence of their mother cohabiting with a
 
partner of the same sex;129 iii) the alleged priority Ms. Atala gave to her personal life over
 
the interests of her three daughters130, and iv) the right of the girls to live in the bosom of a
 
family with a father and a mother131. The Supreme Court concluded t
 
that the appealed
 
judges failed by “not having strictly evaluated in conscience the evidence in the proceeding”
 
and by “having passed over the preferred right of the minors to live and grow within the
 
bosom of a family that is structured normally and appreciated in the social milieu, according
 
to the proper traditional model, and ha[d] incurred in serious fault or abuse, which must be
 
corrected through the admission of the recurso de queja (remedy of complaint)” 132. The
 
main grounds for the provisional custody decision were the mother’s alleged preferred
 
interests and the argument of the girls’ right to live in a traditional family (supra para. 41),
 
for which reason these points shall be examined jointly.
 
114. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to consider whether these arguments were
 
appropriate to fulfill the purpose stated in the Supreme Court’s judgment and in the decision
 
of the Juvenile Court of Villarica, namely, to protect the best interest of the three girls.
 
4.1. Alleged social discrimination
 
115. The Court notes that among the statements taken during in the proceedings, one of
 
the witnesses stated that “there has been discrimination against the little girls, not by other
 
children, but by the parents, who repress the children; I do not have proof of specific acts of
 
discrimination, but an example given was that if there was a slumber party at Karen’s house
 
they would not allow their daughters to go.”133 In addition, some of the witnesses indicated
 
that: “the girls are going to be discriminated against and affected in their social
 
relationships;”134 ii) “in the school environment and among their peers […] they are being
 
pointed out, I am concerned that because we live in such a small city this situation could be
 
difficult”135, and iii) “the parents of their schoolmates and friends adopt protective attitudes
 
128 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, page 2672).
 
129 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, page 2672).”
 
130 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31 2004 (File of appendices to the petition, volume V,
 
page 2672).
 
131 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, page 2672).
 
132 The Supreme Court considered that the situation described constitutes an “aggravated cause” pursuant to
 
Article 225 of the Civil Code, to justify handing over custody to the father, given that the current situation
 
represented “a scenario that implies a risk of harm, which could become irreversible, for the interests of the
 
minors, whose protection must override all other considerations.” Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of
 
Chile of May 31, 2004 (File of appendices to the petition, volume V, pages 2672 and 2673).
 
133 Testimony of April 10 2003 (File of appendices to the petition, volume I, page 360).
 
134 Testimony of April 3, 2003 (File of appendices to the petition, volume I, page 327).
 
135 Testimony of April 3, 2003 (File of appendices to the petition, volume I, page 328).
 
40
 
towards their children regarding this situation, which they consider contradictory to the
 
education they give their children and this must necessarily generate negative situations
 
and isolation for the little girls which, according to what I have heard, is unfortunately
 
happening.”136
 
116. Likewise, the social worker who testified at the proceeding indicated that “in Chile
 
according to a study […] on tolerance and discrimination [conducted in] 1997, it was found
 
that Chileans express a high level of rejection toward homosexual minorities [,] with the
 
percentage of rejection being 60.2%. Based on this, and aware of the high [level of]
 
discrimination [,] these minors would be exposed to unwarranted situations of social
 
discrimination”137.
 
117. On the other hand, the Court notes that the custody case file contains eight affidavits
 
from parents of schoolmates and friends of the three girls in which they testify, inter alia,
 
that “they have never discriminated against [Ms. Atala’s] daughters in any way and that
 
their children got together, played and participated in activities with the López Atala girls138.
 
118. In this regard, the Court confirms that although the case file contained evidence
 
from individuals who stated that the girls could be suffering discrimination within their social
 
environment due to their mother cohabiting with a partner of the same sex, there is also
 
evidence to the contrary regarding to this point (supra paras. 115, 116 and 117). However,
 
the Court notes that the Supreme Court described the potential social discrimination that
 
the girls might suffer in a manner that was conditional and abstract, since it stated that: i)
 
“the girls could be subjected to social discrimination,” and ii) that “clearly their unique
 
family environment differs significantly from that of their school companions and
 
acquaintances in the neighborhood where they live, exposing them to ostracism and
 
discrimination, which would also affect their personal development.”139
 
119. The Court considers that to justify a distinction in treatment and the restriction of a
 
right, based on the alleged possibility of social discrimination, proven or not, that the minors
 
might face due to their parents’ situation cannot be used as legal grounds for a decision.
 
While it is true that certain societies can be intolerant toward a person because of their
 
race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation, States cannot use this as justification to
 
perpetuate discriminatory treatments. States are internationally compelled to adopt the
 
measures necessary “to make effective” the rights established in the Convention, as
 
stipulated in Article 2 of said Inter-American instrument, and therefore must be inclined,
 
precisely, to confront intolerant and discriminatory expressions in order to prevent exclusion
 
or the denial of a specific status.
 
120. The Court notes that social, cultural, and institutional changes are taking place in the
 
framework of contemporary societies, which are aimed at being more inclusive of their
 
citizens´ different lifestyles. This is evident in the social acceptance of interracial couples,140
 
 
136 Testimony of April 3, 2003 (File of appendices to the petition, volume I, page 329).
 
137 Testimony of the social worker of April 14, 2003 (File of appendices to the petition, volume I, page 390). 138 Affidavits of May 2003 (File of appendices to the petition, volume I, pages 458 through 464).´
 
139 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, pages 2672).
 
140 Cf. The Supreme Court of Justice of the United States of America, Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433
 
(April 25, 1984), annulling a court’s decision to grant custody of a minor to the father because it considered that
 
the mother’s new relationship with her new partner of another race would imply suffering for the child, due to the
 
 
41
 
single mothers or fathers and divorced couples, which at one time were not accepted by
 
society. In this regard, the law and the State must help to promote social progress;
 
otherwise there is a grave risk of legitimizing and consolidating different forms of
 
discrimination that violate human rights141.
 
121. On the other hand, with regard to the argument that the child’s best interest might
 
be affected by the risk of rejection by society, the Court considers that potential social
 
stigma due to the mother or father’s sexual orientation cannot be considered as a valid
 
“harm” for the purposes of determining the child’s best interest. If the judges who analyze
 
such cases confirm the existence of social discrimination, it is completely inadmissible to
 
legitimize that discrimination with the argument of protecting the child’s best interest. In
 
the instant case, the Court also emphasizes that Ms. Atala had no reason to suffer the
 
consequences of the girls allegedly being discriminated against in their community due to
 
her sexual orientation.
 
122. Therefore, the Court concludes that the argument of potential social discrimination
 
was not adequate to fulfill the declared purpose of protecting the best interest of Ms. Atala’s
 
daughters.
 
4.2. Alleged confusion of sexual roles
 
123. With regard to the possible confusion of roles that could affect the three girls due to
 
their living with their mother and her partner, the Supreme Court based its decision on: i)
 
“the testimony of persons close to the girls, such as the house maids, who refer to games
 
and attitudes of the girls that reflect confusion about the sexuality of the mother, which
 
they could have perceived in the new cohabitation arrangements at their home,” and ii)
 
“apart from the effects that this cohabitation could have on the well-being and psychological
 
and emotional development of the daughters, given their ages, the potential confusion over
 
sexual roles that could be caused by the absence from the home of a male father and his
 
replacement by another person of the female gender poses a risk to the integral
 
development of the children from which they must be protected” 142.
 
124. As regards the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation, any
 
restriction of a right would need to be based on rigorous and weighty reasons. 143
 
Furthermore, the burden of proof is inverted, which means that it is up to the authority to
 
 
social stigma attached to the mother’s relationship, who through her decision had allegedly put her personal
 
interests before those of the child (“The question, however, is whether the reality of private biases and the possible
 
injury they might inflict are permissible considerations for removal of an infant child from the custody of its natural
 
mother. We have little difficulty in concluding that they are not. The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but
 
neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be beyond the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or
 
indirectly, give them effect”).
 
141 In this regard, in a case on discrimination based on religious belief in the context of a judicial decision on
 
the custody of minors, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the argument of a national court, according to
 
which the best interest of two minors could be affected by the risk of social stigma due to the mother’s beliefs since
 
she belonged to the Jehovah Witnesses religious sect. Cf. ECHR, Case of Hoffmann v. Austria, (No. 12875/87),
 
Judgment of June 23, 1993, paras. 15, 33 to 36.
 
142 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, page 2672).
 
143 Cf. ECHR, Karner V. Austria, (No. 40016/98), Judgment of July 24, 2003. Final, October 24, 2003, para.
 
37 (“very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment
 
based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention”), and ECHR, Case of Kozak, supra note
 
Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 92.
 
 
42
 
prove that its decision does not have a discriminatory purpose or effect. 144 This is especially
 
pertinent in a case such as this, bearing in mind that the determination of harm must be
 
supported by technical evidence and reports from experts and researchers in order to reach
 
conclusions that do not result in discriminatory decisions.
 
125. Indeed, the burden of proof here falls on the State, which must demonstrate that the
 
judicial decision under consideration has been based on the existence of clear, specific and
 
real harm to the children’s development. Thus, the judicial decisions on such matters would
 
need to define in a specific and concrete manner the connections and causality between the
 
behavior and the alleged impact on the child’s development. Otherwise, there is a risk of
 
basing the decision on stereotypes (supra paras. 109 and 111) exclusively associated with
 
the unfounded preconception that children raised by homosexual couples would necessarily
 
have difficulties in defining gender or sexual roles.
 
126. The case law of some countries, as well as many scientific reports, have clearly
 
referred to this matter. For example, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, in a 2010
 
judgment on the right of homosexual couples to adopt minors, considered it relevant that
 
the petitioners did not empirically justify an alleged infringement of the child’s best interest
 
in cases of adoption by same-sex couples based on documents or scientific analysis. On the
 
contrary, the Supreme Court took into account existing studies on the impact of sexual
 
orientation on a child’s development, and considered that it was not possible to uphold the
 
general hypothesis that living with homosexual parents has a negative effect on children’s
 
development.145 Furthermore, the Supreme Court indicated that:
 
Heterosexuality does not guarantee that an adopted child will live in the best situation for his
 
development: this has nothing to do with heterosexuality-homosexuality. All types of families have
 
advantages and disadvantages and each family must be analyzed individually, not from a statistical point
 
of view146.
 
127. On the other hand, several judgments issued by international courts147 conclude that
 
in judicial decisions concerning the custody of minors, consideration of the parent’s behavior
 
144 Cf. ECHR, Case E.B, supra note 99, para. 74 (The Court observes, moreover, that the Government, on
 
whom the burden of proof lay […], were unable to produce statistical information on the frequency of reliance on
 
that ground according to the – declared or known – sexual orientation of the persons applying for adoption, which
 
alone could provide an accurate picture of administrative practice and establish the absence of discrimination when
 
relying on that ground); Case D.H. et al. V. Czech Republic, (No. 57325/00), Judgment of November 13, 2007,
 
para. 177 (As to the burden of proof in this sphere, the Court has established that once the applicant has shown a
 
difference in treatment, it is for the Government to show that it was justified); Case of Orsus et al. v. Croatia, (No.
 
15766/03), Judgment of March 16, 2010, para. 150 (discrimination potentially contrary to the Convention may
 
result from a of facto situation. Where an applicant produces prima facie evidence that the effect of a measure or
 
practice is discriminatory, the burden of proof will shift on to the respondent State, to whom it falls to show that
 
the difference in treatment is not discriminatory); Case of Andrejeva v. Latvia, (No. 55707/00), Judgment of
 
February 18, 2009, para. 84 (Lastly, as to the burden of proof in relation to Article 14 of the Convention, the Court
 
has held that once the applicant has shown a difference in treatment, it is for the Government to show that it was
 
justified); Case of Serife Yigit v. Turkey, (No. 3976/05), Judgment of November 2, 2010, para. 71 (As to the
 
burden of proof in this sphere, the Court has established that once the applicant has shown a difference in
 
treatment, it is for the Government to show that it was justified), and Case of Muñoz Díaz v. Spain, (No.
 
49151/07), Judgment of March 8, 2010, para. 50. 145 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Action of Unconstitutionality A.I. 2/2010, August 16, 2010, para.
 
336.
 
146 Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Action of Unconstitutionality A.I. 2/2010, August 16, 2010, para. 338.
 
147 Cf. ECHR, Case of M. and C. v. Romania, (No. 29032/04). Judgment of September 27, 2011. Final,
 
December 27, 2011, para. 147, and Case of Palau-Martinez v. France (No. 64927/01), Judgment of December 16,
 
2003. Final, March 16, 2004, paras. 42, 43, where the European Court establishes that a judicial decision on the
 
handing over of the custody of minors to a state institution must not consider in abstracto the possible effects of a
 
specific condition of the parents, protected against discriminatory treatments, in the well-being of the child.
 
43
 
is only admissible when there is specific evidence showing that the parent’s behavior has a
 
direct, negative impact on the child’s well-being and development. This seeks to ensure that
 
greater scrutiny is applied when the judicial decision concerns the right to equality of
 
population groups that are traditionally discriminated against, such as homosexuals (supra
 
para. 92 and 124).
 
128. For their part, the experts Rodrigo Uprimny and Allison Jernow cited and provided a
 
number of scientific reports considered representative and authoritative in the field of social
 
sciences, to conclude that living with homosexual parents per se does not affect a child’s
 
emotional and psychological development. These studies agree that: i) the attitudes of
 
homosexual parents are equivalent to those of heterosexual parents; ii) the psychological
 
development and emotional well-being of girls or boys raised by gay fathers or lesbian
 
mothers are comparable to those of girls or boys raised by heterosexual parents; iii) sexual
 
orientation is irrelevant to the formation of affective bonds between children and their
 
parents; iv) the sexual orientation of the mother or father does not affect children’s
 
development in terms of gender and their sense of themselves as male or female, their
 
gender role, behavior and/ or sexual orientation, and v) the children of homosexual parents
 
are not more affected by social stigma than other children 148. Similarly, the expert Jernow
 
mentioned several judgments issued by national courts that used scientific investigations as
 
documentary evidence to affirm that the child’s best interest is not injured by the parent’s
 
homosexuality.
 
149
 
148 Cf. statement offered by expert Rodrigo Uprimny at the public hearing on August 23, 2011, referring to
 
the American Psychology Association, Council of Representatives, Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents,
 
& Children, adopted by the APA Council of Representatives July 28 / 30, 2004, which states that: “There is no
 
scientific evidence that a parent’s effectiveness is related to their sexual orientation: homosexual mothers and
 
fathers are as prone as heterosexual mothers and fathers to provide a healthy and favorable environment for their
 
children [and] […] science has proven that the adaptation, development, and psychological well-being of children is
 
not related to the sexual orientation of their parents, and that the children of homosexual parents have the same
 
probabilities of development as those of heterosexual parents.” Available at:
 
<nowiki>http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx</nowiki> (last visit February 19 2012)
 
Also see written statement offered by the expert Allison Jernow on September 16, 2011, mentioning the following
 
studies: R. McNair, D. Dempsey, S. Wise, A. Perlesz, Lesbian Parenting: Issues Strengths and Challenges, in: 63
 
Family Matters 40 (2002); A. Brewaeys, I. Ponjaert, E.V. Van Hall, S. Golombok, Donor insemination: child
 
development and family functioning in lesbian mother families, in: Human Reproduction Vol. 12, 1997, Page 1349
 
and 1350; Fiona Tasker, Susan Golombok, Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families, American Journal
 
Orthopsychiatry Vol. 65, 1995, Page. 203; K. Vanfraussen, I. Ponjaert-Kristofferson, A. Breways, Family
 
Functioning in Lesbian Families Created by Donor Insemination, in: American Journal of Orthopsychiatry Vol. 73,
 
2003, Page. 78; Marina Rupp, The living conditions of children in same-sex civil partnerships, Federal Ministry of
 
Justice of Germany, 2009, page 27; Henry M.W. Bos, Frank van Balen, Dymphna C. van den Boom, Experience of
 
parenthood, couple relationship, social support, and child-rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families, in:
 
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Vol. 45, 2004, page 755; Rafael Portugal Fernández, Alberto Arauxo
 
Vilar, Aportaciones desde la salud mental a la teoría de la adoption en parejas homosexuales, in: Avances en salud
 
mental relacional Vol. 3, 2004. This last study indicates that “no significant differences are found between
 
homosexuals and heterosexuals in terms of the effectiveness with which they exercise their role as parents” and
 
that “the research carried out to date unanimously indicates that there are no significant differences between
 
children raised by homosexuals and children raised by heterosexuals in terms of sexual identity, sexual roles,
 
sexual orientation, sexual relationships with peers and adults, relationships of friendship, popularity”; Stéphane
 
Nadaud, «Quelques repères pour comprendre la question homoparentale», in: M. Gross, Homoparentalités, état
 
des lieux, Ed. érès «La vie of l’enfant», Toulouse, 2005, and Fiona Tasker, Susan Golombok, Adults Raised as
 
Children in Lesbian Families, in: American Journal Orthopsychiatry Vol. 65, 1995, Page. 203. Cf. Written statement
 
rendered by the expert Allison Jernow on September 16, 2011 (Merits file, volume XI, pages 5079 and 5080).
 
149 Cf. written statement rendered by the expert Allison Jernow on September 16, 2011, mentioning the cases
 
of Re K and B and Six Other Applications, Ontario Supreme Court, May 24, 1995, para. 89; Boots v. Sharrow,
 
Ontario Supreme Court of Justice, 2004 Can LII 5031, January 7, 2004; Bubis v. Jones, Ontario Supreme Court,
 
2000 Can LII 22571, April 10, 2000, Supreme Court of Justice (Brazil) Public Ministry of the State of Rio Grande do
 
Sul v. LMGB, April 27, 2010; District Court of Porto Alegre (Brazil), Adoption of VLN, No. 1605872, July 3, 2006
 
(Merits file, volume XI, page 5082 and 5083).
 
 
44
 
129. The Court notes that the American Psychological Association, referred to by the
 
expert, has stated that existing studies on this matter are “impressively consistent in their
 
failure to identify any deficits in the development of children raised in a lesbian or gay
 
household […] the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcome
 
for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree”150. Therefore,
 
the expert concluded that:
 
Where speculation about potential future harm to a child´s development is soundly refuted by all available
 
social science research, such speculation cannot possibly establish the evidentiary basis for a custody
 
determination151.
 
130. The Court observes that, in the instant case, the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile
 
did not issue a judgment based on an analysis in abstracto of the alleged impact of the
 
mother’s sexual orientation on the girls’ development152, but instead cited the alleged
 
existence of specific evidence. However, in its considerations it limited itself to the
 
application of a test of speculative damage, merely referring, as regards the alleged
 
damage, to “the possible confusion of sexual roles” and the “situation of risk for the girls’
 
development”.153 The Supreme Court of Justice referred to “the deterioration of the social,
 
family, and educational environment of the girls since the mother began to cohabit with her
 
homosexual partner,” without specifying the connection between said cohabitation and the
 
alleged deterioration. It did not present arguments to challenge the possibility that the
 
alleged deterioration might not have occurred as a result of the relationship with the new
 
partner, but rather as a consequence of the parents’ earlier separation and its possible
 
negative effects on the girls. Nor did the Supreme Court of Justice present specific
 
arguments to support the claim that the family situation with the father was more favorable.
 
The Supreme Court of Justice’s argument was based on the potential psychological damage
 
that might be caused to the three girls by their living with a homosexual couple, without
 
giving sufficiently weighty reasons that would serve to refute that the parents’ sexual
 
orientation does not have a negative effect on the child’s psychological and emotional
 
wellbeing, development, sexual orientation and social relationships.
 
131. The Inter-American Court concludes that the Supreme Court of Justice did not
 
comply with the requirement to apply a strict scrutiny test and substantiate the specific
 
harm allegedly suffered by the three girls as a result of their mother cohabiting with a
 
same-sex partner. Moreover, the Court considers that, in this specific case, the fact of the
 
girls living with their mother and her partner did not deprive them of a father, since the
 
150 Cf. written statement offered by the expert Allison Jernow on September 16, 2011 which cites: Amicus
 
Curiae brief presented by the American Psychological Association, Arkansas Psychological Association, National
 
Association of Social Workers and National Association of Social Workers, Arkansas Chapter, in Department of
 
Human Services v. Matthew Howard, Supreme Court of Arkansas (December 2005) at 10-11 (“The APA has
 
described the studies as 'impressively consistent in their failure to identity any deficits in the development of
 
children raised in a lesbian or gay household […] the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the
 
positive outcome for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree'”). Cf. written
 
statement rendered by the expert Allison Jernow on September 16, 2011 (Merits file, volume XI, page 5081). 151 Cf. written statement rendered by the expert Allison Jernow on September 16, 2011 “Where speculation
 
about potential future harm to a child’s development is soundly refuted by all available social science research,
 
such speculation cannot possibly establish the evidentiary basis for a custody determination.” (Merits file, volume
 
XI, page 5083).
 
152 The Supreme Court referred to the testimonies given by the house maids regarding the girls’ alleged
 
confusion over roles. Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 considering paragraph
 
15 (File of appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2672).
 
153 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, page 2672).
 
45
 
purpose of the custody hearing did not imply that the father would have lost contact with
 
them.
 
4.3. Alleged privilege of interests
 
132. In its judgment, the Supreme Court indicated that “it cannot be ignored that the
 
mother of the minors, in making the decision to openly express her homosexuality, as may
 
be done freely by anyone in the context of very personal gender rights, without deserving
 
any juridical disapproval or reproach for this, put her own interests before those of her
 
daughters, especially when she began to live with her homosexual partner in the same
 
home where she undertook the upbringing and care of her daughters separately from their
 
father.” 154 Similarly, the Juvenile Court of Villarrica declared that “the respondent has given
 
preference to her own well-being and personal interest over carrying out her role as a
 
mother, under conditions that could affect the subsequent development of the minors” 155.
 
133. The Inter-American Court considers it necessary to emphasize that the scope of the
 
right to non-discrimination due to sexual orientation is not limited to the fact of being a
 
homosexual per se, but includes its expression and the ensuing consequences in a person’s
 
life project. In this regard, in the Case of Laskey, Jaggard, and Brown v. United Kingdom,
 
the European Court of Human Rights stated that both sexual orientation and its exercise are
 
a relevant aspect of private life156.
 
134. In this regard, the expert Wintemute stated that:
 
“as the case law of the European Court makes clear, sexual orientation also includes conduct. This means
 
that protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation is not only about less favourable
 
treatment for being lesbian or gay. It also covers discrimination because an individual acts on their sexual
 
orientation, by choosing to engage in consensual sexual activity in private, or to enter into a long-term
 
couple relationship with a partner of the same sex.”157
 
135. The scope of protection of the right to a private life has been interpreted in broad
 
terms by the international human rights courts, when stating that it goes far beyond the
 
right to privacy. According to the European Court of Human Rights, the right to a private life
 
encompasses physical and social identity, an individual’s personal development and
 
personal autonomy as well as their right to establish and develop relationships with other
 
people and their social environment, including the right to establish and maintain
 
154 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, page 2672).
 
155 Decision on provisional custody issued by the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, May 2 2003 (File of appendices
 
to the petition, volume V, page 2567).
 
156 Cf. ECHR, Case of Laskey, Jaggard, and Brown v. United Kingdom, (No. 21627/93; 21826/93; 21974/93),
 
Judgment of February 19, 1997, para. 36 (“There can be no doubt that sexual orientation and activity concern an
 
intimate aspect of private life”). See also Case of Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, (No. 7525/76), Judgment of
 
October 22, 1981, para. 52; Case of A.D.T. v. United Kingdom, (No. 35765/97), Judgment of July 31, 2000. Final,
 
October 31, 2000, para. 23 (“the Court recalls that the mere existence of legislation prohibiting male homosexual
 
conduct in private may continuously and directly affect a person's private life”).
 
157 Cf. expert testimony rendered by expert Robert Wintemute, September 16, 2011 (Merits file, volume XI,
 
pages 5360). He also stated that the Supreme Court of Canada in the Case of Egan v. Canada established that
 
“sexual orientation is more than simply a ´status` that an individual possesses: it is something that is
 
demonstrated in an individual’s conduct by the choice of a partner. Just as the [Canadian] Charter [of Rights and
 
Freedoms] protects religious beliefs and religious practice as aspects of religious freedom, so too should it be
 
recognized that sexual orientation encompasses aspects of ´status` and ´conduct` and that both should receive
 
protection”. Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 SCR, 513, 518 (Merits file, volume XI, page 5360).
 
 
46
 
relationships with people of the same sex 158. Moreover, the right to maintain personal
 
relationships with other individuals, in the context of the right to a private life, extends to
 
the public and professional spheres159.
 
136. In this regard, a person’s sexual orientation is also linked to the notion of freedom
 
and a person’s right to self-determination and to freely choose the options and
 
circumstances that give meaning to his or her existence, in accordance with his or her own
 
choices and convictions. 160 Therefore, “[t]he emotional life with the spouse or permanent
 
partner, which obviously includes sexual relationships, is one of the main aspects of that
 
realm or circle of intimacy”161.
 
137. For its part, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico has stated that:
 
from human dignity […] arises, among others, the free development of the personality, that is, every
 
individual’s right to choose, freely and in an autonomous manner, how to live their life, which includes,
 
among other expressions, […] their free sexual choice. […] [a] person’s sexual orientation, as part of their
 
158 Cf. ECHR, Case of Pretty V. United Kingdom (No. 2346/02), Judgment of April 29, 2002. Final, July 29,
 
2002, para. 61 (“the concept of [‘] private life [’] is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. It covers
 
the physical and psychological integrity of a person […]. It can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual's
 
physical and social identity […]. Elements such as, for example, gender identification, name and sexual orientation
 
and sexual life fall within the personal sphere protected by Article 8 […]. Article 8 also protects a right to personal
 
development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world
 
[…]. Although no previous case has established as such any right to self-determination as being contained in Article
 
8 of the Convention, the Court considers that the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying
 
the interpretation of its guarantees”); Case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, (No. 30141/04), Judgment of June 24,
 
2010, November 22, 2010, para. 90 (“It is undisputed […] that the relationship of a same-sex couple like the
 
applicants' falls within the notion of [‘] private life [’] within the meaning of Article 8”); Case Dudgeon, supra note
 
Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 41 (“the maintenance in force of the impugned legislation constitutes a
 
continuing interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life (which includes his sexual life) within
 
the meaning of Article 8 par. 1”); Case Burghartz v. Switzerland, (No. 16213/90), Judgment of February 22, 1994,
 
para. 24, and Case Laskey, Jaggard and Brown, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 36.
 
159 Cf. ECHR, Case Peck V. United Kingdom, (No. 44647/98), Judgment of January 28, 2003. Final, April 28,
 
2003, para. 57 (“Private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. The Court has already held
 
that elements such as gender identification, name, sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the
 
personal sphere protected by Article 8. That Article also protects a right to identity and personal development, and
 
the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and it may include
 
activities of a professional or business nature. There is, therefore, a zone of interaction of a person with others,
 
even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of [‘]private life[’]”), citing ECHR, Case P.G. and J.H. v.
 
United Kingdom (No. 44787/98), Judgment of September 25, 2001. Final, December 25, 2001, para. 56. Cf. ECHR,
 
Case Niemietz v. Germany, (No. 13710/88), Judgment of December 16, 1992, para. 29 (“The Court does not
 
consider it possible or necessary to attempt an exhaustive definition of the notion of [‘] private life [’]. However, it
 
would be too restrictive to limit the notion to an [‘] inner circle [’] in which the individual may live his own personal
 
life as he chooses and to exclude therefrom entirely the outside world not encompassed within that circle. Respect
 
for private life must also comprise to a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationships with other
 
human beings. There appears, furthermore, to be no reason of principle why this understanding of the notion of [‘]
 
private life [’] should be taken to exclude activities of a professional or business nature since it is, after all, in the
 
course of their working lives that the majority of people have a significant, if not the greatest, opportunity of
 
developing relationships with the outside world”).
 
160 Mutatis mutandi, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits,
 
Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 52.
 
161 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-499, 2003. The Constitutional Court has defined the right to
 
the free development of the personality, enshrined in Article 16 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, as the
 
right of persons to “choose their life plan and develop their personality according to their interests, wishes and
 
convictions, provided that it does not affect the rights of others, or violate the constitutional order” (Constitutional
 
Court, Judgment C-309 of 1997), and “a person’s capacity to independently make the life choices that will
 
determine the course of his existence” (Constitutional Court, Judgment SU-642 of 1998).
 
 
47
 
personal identity, [is] a relevant element in any life project they may have and that, as any other person,
 
includes the desire to share their life with another person of the same or different sex162.
 
138. In the instant case, the Court notes that both the Supreme Court of Justice and the
 
Juvenile Court of Villarica based their decisions to award custody to the father on the
 
assumption that Ms. Atala could openly declare herself a lesbian. However, they indicated
 
that by exercising her homosexuality when she decided to live with a same-sex partner, she
 
put her own interests before those of her daughters (supra paras. 41 and 56).
 
139. In this regard, the Court considers that the prohibition of discrimination due to
 
sexual orientation should include, as protected rights, the conduct associated with the
 
expression of homosexuality. Furthermore, if sexual orientation is an essential component of
 
a person’s identity163, it was not reasonable to require Ms. Atala to put her life and family
 
project on hold. Under no circumstance can it be considered “legally reprehensible” that Ms.
 
Atala made the decision to restart her life. Furthermore, it was not proven that the three
 
girls suffered any harm.
 
140. Therefore, the Court considers that to require the mother to limit her lifestyle options
 
implies using a “traditional” concept of women’s social role as mothers, according to which it
 
is socially expected that women bear the main responsibility for their children’s upbringing
 
and that in pursuit of this she should have given precedence to raising her children,
 
renouncing an essential aspect of her identity. Therefore, the Court considers that using the
 
argument of Ms. Atala’s alleged preference of her personal interests, does not fulfill the
 
purpose of protecting the best interest of the three girls.
 
4.4. Right to a “normal and traditional” family
 
141. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Justice stated that “the preferred right of the
 
minors to live and grow within the bosom of a family that is structured normally and is
 
appreciated in the social environment, according to the proper traditional model” was
 
disregarded164. For its part, the Juvenile Court of Villarica, in its provisional custody
 
decision, indicated that “the petitioner offers more favorable arguments on behalf of the
 
best interest of the girls, which in the context of a heterosexual and traditional society take
 
on great importance” 165.
 
142. The Court confirms that the American Convention does not define a limited concept
 
of family, nor does it only protect a “traditional” model of the family. In this regard, the
 
Court reiterates that the concept of family life is not limited only to marriage and must
 
162 Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Action of Unconstitutionality A.I. 2/2010, August 16, 2010, paras. 263
 
and 264.
 
163 Cf. ECHR, Case of Clift, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 57 (“the Court has considered
 
to constitute ‘other status’ characteristics which, like some of the specific examples listed in the article, can be said
 
to be personal in the sense that they are innate or inherent. Thus in Salgueiro da Silva Mouta, […] it found that
 
sexual orientation was [‘] undoubtedly covered [’] by Article 14”).
 
164 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, page 2673).
 
165 Decision in the provisional custody application by the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, of May 2 2003 (File of
 
appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2567).
 
48
 
encompass other de facto family ties in which the parties live together outside of
 
marriage166.
 
143. International case law is consistent on this point. In the case of Salgueiro da Silva
 
Mouta v. Portugal, the European Court considered that the decision of a national court to
 
remove an underage child from the custody of a homosexual parent, with the argument that
 
the child should live in a traditional Portuguese family, lacked a reasonable relationship of
 
proportionality between the measure taken (withdrawal of the custody) and the purpose
 
sought (protection of the best interest of the minor) 167.
 
144. Similarly, in the Case of Karner v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights
 
stated that:
 
“The aim of protecting the family in the traditional sense is rather abstract and a broad variety of concrete
 
measures may be used to implement it. […] as is the position where there is a difference in treatment
 
based on sex or sexual orientation, the principle of proportionality does not merely require that the
 
measure chosen is in principle suited for realizing the aim sought. It must also be shown that it was
 
necessary, in order to achieve that aim, to exclude certain categories of people” 168.
 
145. In the instant case, this Court finds that the language used by the Supreme Court of
 
Chile regarding the girls’ alleged need to grow up in a “normally structured family that is
 
appreciated within its social environment,” and not in an “exceptional family”, reflects a
 
limited, stereotyped perception of the concept of family, which has no basis in the
 
Convention, since there is no specific model of family (the “traditional family”)169.
 
4.5. Conclusion
 
146. Bearing in mind all the foregoing considerations, this Court concludes that although
 
the Judgment of the Supreme Court and the provisional custody ruling sought to protect the
 
best interests of the girls M., V., and R., it was not demonstrated that the grounds stated in
 
the decisions were appropriate to achieve said purpose, since the Supreme Court of Justice
 
and the Juvenile Court of Villarrica did not prove in this specific case that Ms. Atala’s
 
cohabitation with her partner had a negative effect on the girls’ best interest (supra paras.
 
121, 131 and 139). On the contrary they used abstract, stereotyped, and/or discriminating
 
arguments to justify their decisions (supra paras. 118, 119, 125, 130, 140 and 145), for
 
which reason said decisions constitute discriminatory treatment against Ms. Atala.
 
Therefore, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to equality enshrined in
 
166 Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, paras. 69 and 70. Also see: ECHR, Case Keegan v. Ireland,
 
(No. 16969/90), Judgment of May 26, 1994, para. 44, and Case Kroon et al. v. Netherlands, (No. 18535/91),
 
Judgment of October 27, 1994, para. 30.
 
167 Cf. ECHR, Case Salgueiro da Silva Mouta, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., paras. 34 to 36.
 
168 ECHR, Case Karner, supra note 143, para. 41 (“The aim of protecting the family in the traditional sense is
 
rather abstract and a broad variety of concrete measures may be used to implement it. […] as is the position
 
where there is a difference in treatment based on sex or sexual orientation, the principle of proportionality does not
 
merely require that the measure chosen is in principle suited for realizing the aim sought. It must also be shown
 
that it was necessary in order to achieve that aim to exclude certain categories of people”).
 
169 The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico has stated that legal recognition of homoparental families, which
 
exist either through reproduction or adoption, does not disregard the child’s best interest. On the contrary, from
 
such recognition come a series of rights in favor of the child and duties for those who are his parents, since it is a
 
reality that such families exist and, therefore, must be protected by law: they are each as respectable as others Cf.
 
Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Action of Unconstitutionality A.I. 2/2010, August 16, 2010, para. 333.
 
49
 
Article 24, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of
 
Karen Atala Riffo.
 
5. Discriminatory treatment against the girls M., V. and R.
 
Arguments of the parties
 
147. In relation to Article 19 of the American Convention170, the Commission argued that
 
“the Supreme Court violated the girls’ best interest […] in the absence of determinations
 
based on evidence and specific facts.”
 
148. The representatives argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice had
 
injured the child’s best interest “when it ignored the right of the girls M., V., and R. not to
 
be separated from their family.” They added that children could not be discriminated against
 
based on their parents’ status.
 
149. The State indicated that the alleged violations in relation to the three girls “were
 
refuted from the moment it was demonstrated that said judgment was not the result of
 
discrimination based on sexual orientation, but rather of the analysis of specific facts proven
 
in the custody trial.”
 
Considerations of the Court
 
150. The Court has already concluded that both the Judgment of the Supreme Court and
 
the decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, regarding provisional custody, constituted
 
discriminatory treatment against Ms. Atala (supra para. 146). Accordingly, it will proceed to
 
analyze whether said treatment, in turn, resulted in discrimination against the girls M., V.,
 
and R. In this regard, the Court considers that the prohibition of discrimination, in cases
 
related to minors, must be interpreted in light of Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of
 
the Child, which states that:
 
1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child
 
within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's
 
or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social
 
origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
 
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms
 
of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the
 
child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.
 
151. In this regard, the Court points out that children cannot be discriminated against
 
based on their own status and this prohibition extends also to the conditions of their parents
 
or family members, for example in this case the mother’s sexual orientation. The Committee
 
on the Rights of the Child has pointed out in its General Comment No. 7 that children may
 
suffer the consequences of discrimination against their parents, for example if they are born
 
out of wedlock or in other circumstances that deviate from traditional values 171.
 
152. On the other hand, regarding the relationship between the child’s best interest and
 
the prohibition of discrimination, the expert Cillero Bruñol stated that:
 
170 Article 19 of the American Convention establishes that “Every minor child has the right to the measures of
 
protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society and the State.”
 
171 Cf. United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 7. Implementing Child
 
Rights in Early Childhood, CRC/C/GC/7, September 30, 2005, para. 12.
 
 
50
 
a decision justified with the child’s best interest, understood as the protection of his rights,
 
cannot at the same time expect to legitimize a discriminatory decision prima facie, or
 
in abstract, that affects the child’s right to be taken care of by his mother172.
 
153. For his part, the expert Robert Wintemute emphasized that:
 
“discrimination based on […] the sexual orientation of the child’s parent is never in the best
 
interest of the child” 173.
 
154. By having used the mother’s sexual orientation as grounds for its decision, the
 
Supreme Court, in turn, discriminated against the three girls, since it took into account
 
considerations it would not have used if the custody proceedings had been between two
 
heterosexual parents. In particular, this Court reiterates that the child’s best interest is a
 
guiding principle in the drafting of provisions and in their application in all aspects of the
 
child’s life. 174
 
155. Furthermore, the discriminatory treatment against the mother had repercussions for
 
the girls, since it was used as grounds to decide that they should not continue to live with
 
their mother. Thus, the effects of this decision were extended when the girls were separated
 
from their mother due to her sexual orientation. Therefore, the Court concludes that Article
 
24, in conjunction with Articles 19 and 1(1)of the American Convention, was violated in
 
detriment of the girls M., V., and R.
 
D. Right to private life and right to family life
 
Arguments of the parties
 
156. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 11175 of the American Convention, the
 
Commission argued that “the right to a private life encompasses all spheres of the intimate
 
realm and autonomy of an individual, including his or her personality, identity, decisions
 
over his or her sexual life, personal and family relations [, given that] sexual orientation
 
constitutes a fundamental component of an individual’s private life.” It held that “the State’s
 
interference in the private life of Karen Atala was arbitrary, since the custody decision was
 
based on discriminatory prejudices driven by her sexual orientation [….] and it also
 
arbitrarily interfered in her autonomy to make decisions on her personal life based on said
 
orientation. The latter […since] in the absence of objective reasons, the Supreme Court of
 
Justice, based on the expression of her sexual orientation, deprived her of the custody of
 
her daughters and a life in common with them, a fundamental aspect of her life plan.”
 
172 Written statement rendered by expert Miguel Cillero Bruñol, August 4, 2011 (Merits file, volume II, page
 
929).
 
173 Written statement rendered by expert Robert Wintemute, September 16, 2011 (Merits file, volume XI,
 
page 5355).
 
174 Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, para. 137, opinion 2.
 
175 Article 11 of the Convention states that:
 
1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized.
 
2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his
 
home or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.
 
3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
 
51
 
157. For their part, the representatives argued that “the interference is arbitrary because
 
the only justification is the expression of the mother’s sexual orientation, which is part of
 
her personal identity, an essential characteristic of all individuals, which has no bearing
 
whatsoever on the daughters’ well-being.” The representatives pointed out that “there is no
 
question that both [Ms.] Atala and her daughters suffered arbitrary interference in their
 
private life.”
 
158. Furthermore, in relation to Articles 11(2) and 17176 of the American Convention, the
 
Commission and the representatives alleged “unlawful and arbitrary interference in the right
 
to private and family life, which extends to the development of relationships between
 
members of a family and the role of emotional relationships in the life project of each
 
member.” The representatives pointed out that “there is no single concept of family” and
 
that “[Ms.] Atala, her daughters and [Ms.] De Ramón undoubtedly constituted a family unit
 
which was broken up by decisions based on prejudice against Judge Atala’s expression of
 
her sexual orientation.”
 
159. The State argued that “in a custody trial, whose purpose is to consider which parent
 
shall take charge of the personal care of the children, the judge not only has the power but
 
also the obligation to assess each and every one of the specific conditions and
 
circumstances that determine the child’s best interest. [...] It is therefore inherent to the
 
custody trial […] that the judge may, according to law, investigate intimate details of the life
 
of the persons. It argued “that the pursuit of the child’s best interest must prevail over an
 
unalterable conception of the right to intimacy, since the realm of private life cannot be
 
excluded from the judge’s knowledge and consideration.” It added that “neither [the]
 
Supreme Court nor the other domestic courts have violated the right enshrined in Article
 
11(2)of the American Convention in the decisions on the custody trial […] but, on the
 
contrary, have merely issued rulings regarding considerations that are inherent to a trial of
 
that nature.”
 
160. Finally, the State argued that “the separation of the family is not attributable to the
 
actions of the Chilean courts [since] the task of the Chilean courts was precisely the
 
opposite, that is, responding to the petition of the parties […] to decide, according to the
 
girls’ best interest, which new family unit provided the best support for their development.”
 
Considerations of the Court
 
161. Article 11 of the Convention prohibits all arbitrary or abusive interference in a
 
person’s private life, and encompasses various spheres of the intimate realm as well as the
 
private lives of their families. In that regard, the Court has held that the realm of privacy is
 
exempt and immune from abusive or arbitrary intrusion or aggression by third parties or by
 
the public authorities177.
 
162. Furthermore, regarding Article 11 of the American Convention, the Court has
 
specified that, although this provision is titled “Protection of Honor and Dignity” (in Spanish)
 
176 In this regard, Article 17 of the Convention states:
 
1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by
 
society and the State.
 
177 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs.
 
Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 194 and Case Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para.
 
48.
 
52
 
its content includes, among others, the protection of privacy178. Privacy is an ample concept
 
that is not subject to exhaustive definitions and includes, among other protected realms,
 
the sex life and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings.179
 
Thus, privacy includes the way in which the individual views himself and to what extent and
 
how he decides to project this view to others180.
 
163. The Court observes that the Commission’s arguments regarding the alleged violation
 
of Ms. Karen Atala’s right to privacy were focused on the judgment issued by the Supreme
 
Court. On their part, the representatives added the ruling on the provisional custody as
 
another fact that allegedly generated the violation of Ms. Atala’s right to privacy. Therefore,
 
these two facts will be analyzed.
 
164. The Court has established in its case law that the right to private life is not an
 
absolute right and, therefore, may be restricted by States provided that the intrusions are
 
neither abusive nor arbitrary. For this reason, these must be regulated by the law, pursue a
 
legitimate goal and comply with the requirements of suitability, necessity and
 
proportionality, in other words, they must be necessary in a democratic society181.
 
165. In this regard the Court emphasizes that Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation is part of her
 
private life, and therefore any interference in it must meet the standards of “suitability,
 
necessity, and proportionality.” This differs from the context of a custody proceeding, where
 
specific parental behaviors that have allegedly caused damage to the child may be analyzed
 
(supra paras. 109 and 111).
 
166. Given that the domestic courts gave importance to the issue of Ms. Atala’s sexual
 
orientation in the custody decision, they exposed different aspects of her private life
 
throughout the proceedings. The Court notes that the reason given by the courts for
 
interfering in Ms. Atala’s private life was the same one used to justify the discriminatory
 
treatment (supra para.107), namely, the alleged best interest of the three girls. The Court
 
considers that, although that principle is related in abstracto to a legitimate goal (supra
 
para.110), the measure was unsuitable and disproportionate to achieve that purpose, since
 
the domestic courts should have limited themselves to examining parental behavior– which
 
could be part of their private life – but without exposing and scrutinizing Ms. Atala’s sexual
 
orientation.
 
167. The Court finds that during the custody proceeding, based on a stereotyped vision on
 
the scope of Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation (supra para. 146), there was arbitrary
 
178 Cf. Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia, supra note 177, para. 193 and Case of Rosendo Cantú
 
et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No.
 
216, para. 119.
 
179 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 119, and Case of
 
Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 30,
 
2010 Series C No. 215, para. 129, quoting ECHR, Case of Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, (No. 7525/76), Judgment of
 
October 22, 1981, para. 41, Case of X and Y v. The Netherlands, (No. 8978/80), Judgment of March 26, 1985,
 
para. 22. Case of Niemietz, supra note 159, para. 29, and Case of Peck, supra note 159, para. 57.
 
180 Cf. Case Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 119, and Case
 
Fernández Ortega et al., supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 129, citing ECHR, Case Niemietz, supra
 
note 159, para. 29, and Case Peck, supra note 159, para. 57.
 
181 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment
 
January 27, 2009. Series C No.193, para. 56 and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection, Merits,
 
Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 116.
 
53
 
interference in her private life, given that sexual orientation is part of a person’s intimacy
 
and is not relevant when examining aspects related to an individual’s suitability as a parent.
 
Therefore, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 11(2), in conjunction with
 
Article 1(1)of the American Convention, to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo.
 
168. Furthermore, the Court notes that one of the central arguments considered in the
 
judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice and the decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarica
 
in the provisional custody proceeding, was Ms. Atala’s cohabitation with her lesbian partner
 
(supra paras. 41 and 56). Accordingly, this Court considers it essential to examine the
 
alleged violation of the right to family life alleged by the Commission and the
 
representatives.
 
169. In this regard, the Court reiterates that Article 11(2) of the American Convention is
 
closely linked to the right to protection of the family and to live in a family, recognized in
 
Article 17 of the Convention, which requires the State not only to provide and directly
 
implement measures of protection for children, but also to favor, in the broadest possible
 
terms, the development and strength of the family unit182. The Court has established that,
 
under certain conditions, the separation of children from their family constitutes a violation
 
of said right183, since even legal separations of a child from his family may only proceed if
 
these are duly justified184.
 
170. With regard to Articles 11(2) and 17(1) of the American Convention, every person’s
 
right to protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her family is
 
implicitly a part of the right to protection of the family, and is also explicitly recognized by
 
Article 12(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,185 V of the American Declaration
 
of Rights and Duties of Man,186 17 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political
 
Rights,187 and 8 of the European Human Rights Convention.188 These provisions are
 
especially significant when separation of a child from his family is being analyzed189.
 
171. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the mutual
 
enjoyment of harmonious relations between parents and children is a fundamental
 
182 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, para. 66 and Case Chitay Nech et al., supra note Error!
 
Bookmark not defined., para. 157.
 
183 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, paras. 71 and 72 and Case Chitay Nech et al., supra note
 
Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 157.
 
184 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, para. 77.
 
185 Article 12(1) states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
 
home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection
 
of the law against such interference or attacks.”
 
186 Article V of the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man states that “every person has the right
 
to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation and his private and family life.”
 
187 Article 17 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights states that “[n]o one shall be subjected
 
to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on
 
his honour and reputation.”
 
188 In this regard, Article 8(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
 
Freedoms states that: “[e]veryone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
 
correspondence.” Likewise, Article 8(2) states that “[t]here shall be no interference by a public authority with the
 
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
 
interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder
 
or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
 
189 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, para. 71.
 
54
 
component of family life,190 and the purpose of Article 8 of the European Convention on
 
Human Rights is to protect individuals against arbitrary interference by public authorities
 
and to require the State to take affirmative measures to promote effective respect for family
 
life.191
 
172. With regard to the concept of family, various human rights organs created by
 
treaties, have stated that there is no single model for a family, which may have many
 
variations192. Similarly, the European Court has interpreted the concept of “family” in broad
 
terms. With regard to different sex couples, it has repeatedly indicated that:
 
The notion of family [...]is not confined solely to families based on marriage and may encompass other de
 
facto ties where the parties are living together out of wedlock. A child born of such a relationship is ipso
 
jure part of that “family” unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth. Thus there exists
 
between the child and his parents a bond amounting to family life. The Court further recalls that the
 
mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of
 
family life, even if the relationship between the parents has broken down, and domestic measures
 
hindering such enjoyment amount to an interference with the right protected by Article 8 of the
 
Convention193.
 
190 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, para. 72, citing ECHR, Case of Buchberger v. Austria, (No.
 
32899/96). Judgment of December 20, 2001. Final, March 20, 2003, para. 35; Case of T and K v. Finland,
 
Judgment of July 12, 2001, para. 151; Case of Elsholz v. Germany, Judgment of July 13, 2000, para. 43; Case of
 
Bronda v. Italy, Judgment of June 9, 1998, para. 51; Case of Johansen v. Norway, Judgment of August 7, 1996,
 
para. 52.
 
191 Cf. ECHR, Case of Olsson v. Sweden, Judgment of March 24, 1988, para. 81. 192 Cf. United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General
 
Recommendation No. 21 (13th period of sessions, 1994). Equality in marriage and in family relationships, para. 13
 
(“The form and the concept of a family can vary from State to State and even between regions within a State.
 
Whatever form it takes, and whatever the legal system, religion, custom or tradition within the country, the
 
treatment of women in the family, both at law and in private, must conform to the principles of equality and justice
 
for all people, as Article 2 of the Convention requires”); Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment
 
No. 7. Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood, supra note 171, paras. 15 and 19 (“The Committee
 
recognizes that ‘family’ here refers to a variety of arrangements that can provide for young children’s care,
 
nurturance and development, including the nuclear family, the extended family and other traditional and modern
 
community-based arrangements, provided that these are consistent with children’s rights and best interests.
 
[…]The Committee notes that in practice family patterns are variable and changing in many regions, as is the
 
availability of informal networks of support for parents, with an overall trend towards greater diversity in family
 
size, parental roles and arrangements for bringing up children”); Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.
 
19 (39th period of sessions, 1990). The family (Article 23), HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol.I), para. 2 (“The Committee
 
notes that the concept of family may differ in some respects from State to State, and even between regions within
 
a State, and that it is therefore not possible to give the concept a standard definition”), and United Nations, C
 
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 16 (32nd period of sessions, 1988). Right to Privacy (Article 17),
 
HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I), para. 5 (“Regarding the term "family", the objectives of the Covenant require that for
 
the purposes of Article 17, this term be given a broad interpretation that includes all those comprising the family,
 
as understood in the society of the State Party concerned.”)
 
193 ECHR, Case of Schalk and Kopf, supra note 158, para. 91 (“the notion of family […] is not confined to
 
marriage-based relationships and may encompass other of facto “family” ties where the parties are living together
 
out of wedlock. A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that “family” unit from the moment and
 
by the very fact of his birth. Thus there exists between the child and his parents a bond amounting to family life.
 
The Court further recalls that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a
 
fundamental element of family life, even if the relationship between the parents has broken down, and domestic
 
measures hindering such enjoyment amount to an interference with the right protected by Article 8 of the
 
Convention”), citing ECHR, Case Elsholz, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 43; Case Keegan,
 
supra note 166, para. 44, and Case of Johnston et al. v. Ireland, (No. 9697/82), Judgment of December 18, 1986,
 
para. 56; see also ECHR, Case of Alim V. Russia (No. 39417/07), Judgment of September 27, 2011, para. 70; Case
 
of Berrehab v. The Netherlands, (No. 10730/84), Judgment of June 21, 1988, para. 21, and Case of L. v.
 
Netherlands, (No. 45582/99), Judgment of June 1, 2004. Final, September 1, 2004, para. 36.
 
55
 
173. In the Case of X, Y and Z v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights,
 
following an ample concept of family, acknowledged that a transsexual, their female partner
 
and a child may comprise a family, stating that:
 
When deciding whether a relationship can be said to amount to “family life”, a number of factors may be
 
relevant, including whether the couple live together, the length of their relationship and whether they
 
have demonstrated their commitment to each other by having children together or by any other means194.
 
174. In the first place, and with respect to the conventional protection of same-sex
 
couples in the Case Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, the European Court revised its case law in
 
force at that time, which only accepted that the emotional and sexual relationship of a
 
same-sex couple constitutes “private life,” but had not considered what constituted “family
 
life,” despite the applicants having lived together in a long-term relationship195. Applying a
 
broader concept of family, the European Court established that “a cohabiting same-sex
 
couple living in a stable de facto partnerships, falls within the notion of ‘family life’, just as
 
the relationship of a different-sex couple in the same situation would196,” considering it
 
“artificial to maintain the view that, in contrast to a different-sex couple, a same-sex couple
 
cannot enjoy ‘family life’ for the purposes of Article 8” of the European Convention197.
 
175. The Court emphasizes that, unlike the provisions of the European Convention, which
 
only protect the right to family life under Article 8, the American Convention contains two
 
provisions that protect family life in a complementary manner. Indeed, the Court considers
 
that the imposition of a single concept of family should be analyzed not only as possible
 
arbitrary interference with private life, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the American
 
Convention, but also, because of the impact it may have on a family unit, in light of Article
 
17 of said Convention.
 
176. In the instant case, the Court notes that from November 2002, up until the decision
 
on provisional custody was issued, in May 2003, there was a close relationship between Ms.
 
Atala, Ms. De Ramón, Ms. Atala’s older son and the three girls. In this regard, Ms. Atala
 
stated that “we were an absolutely normal family. A boy, three girls, a cat, a male dog, a
 
female dog, a house, we had projects as a family. We had dreams as a family”198. In
 
addition, Ms. De Ramón stated that the “life of the five family members, six [with her …]
 
was almost idyllic, since [they] had a relationship based on plenty of communication, at
 
least among the women in the family”199.
 
194 Cf. ECHR, Case of X, Y and Z v. United Kingdom, (No. 21830/93), Judgment of April 22, 1997, para. 36
 
(“When deciding whether a relationship can be said to amount to ‘family life’, a number of factors may be relevant,
 
including whether the couple live together, the length of their relationship and whether they have demonstrated
 
their commitment to each other by having children together or by any other means”); ECHR, Case of Marckx V.
 
Belgium, (No. 6833/74), Judgment of June 13, 1979, para. 31; Case of Keegan, supra note 166, para. 44, and
 
Case of Kroon et al., supra note 166, para. 30.
 
195 ECHR, Case Schalk and Kopf, supra note 158, para. 92 (“the Court's case-law has only accepted that the
 
emotional and sexual relationship of a same-sex couple constitutes ‘private life’ but has not found that it
 
constitutes ‘family life’, even where a long-term relationship of cohabiting partners was at stake”).
 
196 ECHR, Case Schalk and Kopf, supra note 158, para. 94 (“a cohabiting same-sex couple living in a stable of
 
facto partnership, falls within the notion of ‘family life’, just as the relationship of a different-sex couple in the same
 
situation would”) and Case P.B. and J.S. v. Austria, (No. 18984/02), Judgment of July 22, 2010. Final, October 22,
 
2010, para. 30.
 
197 ECHR, Case Schalk and Kopf, supra note 158, para. 94 (“the Court considers it artificial to maintain the
 
view that, in contrast to a different-sex couple, a same-sex couple cannot enjoy “family life” for the purposes of
 
Article 8”) and the Case of P.B. and J.S., supra note 196, para. 30.
 
198 Statement by Ms. Karen Atala Riffo before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing in the present
 
case.
 
199 Statement by Ms. Emma of Ramón, August 4, 2011 (Merits file, volume II, page 762).
 
56
 
177. Therefore, it is clear that they had created a family unit which, as such, was
 
protected under Articles 11(2) and 17(1) of the American Convention, since they shared
 
their lives, with frequent contact and a personal and emotional closeness between Ms.
 
Atala, her partner, her eldest son and the three girls. The aforementioned, without prejudice
 
to the fact that the girls shared another family environment with their father.
 
178. This Court has already concluded that the grounds presented both by the Supreme
 
Court of Justice and by the Juvenile Court of Villarica in the provisional custody decision
 
were not an appropriate measure to protect the girls’ best interest (supra para. 146), which
 
also had the result of separating the family constituted by the mother, her partner and the
 
girls. This amounts to arbitrary interference with the right to private and family life.
 
Therefore, the Court rules that the State violated Articles 11(2) and 17(1), in conjunction
 
with Article 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo and the
 
girls M., V. and R. Regarding the latter, said violations of family life also occurred in relation
 
to Article 19 of the Convention, given that they were separated in an unjustified manner
 
from one of their family environments.
 
E. Judicial guarantees and judicial protection
 
1. Judicial guarantees and judicial protection regarding Ms. Atala
 
Arguments of the parties
 
179. The Commission and the representatives argued the alleged violation of the judicial
 
guarantee of impartiality due to the judges’ stereotyped approach to the case. The
 
Commission pointed out that given “their consideration of [Ms. Atala’s] sexual orientation as
 
a key element in her fitness as a mother, together with the evident use of discriminatory
 
prejudices,” it may be concluded that Ms. Atala “was not afforded the guarantees of
 
impartiality.” The representatives added that the annulment of the Appeals Court judgment
 
by the Supreme Court of Justice was a violation of judicial independence. The Commission
 
and the representatives argued that all the aforementioned affects access to justice, for
 
which reason they alleged the violation of Article 8(1)200 and Article 25201 of the American
 
Convention.
 
180. Furthermore, the representatives argued that the Supreme Court “admitted [d] a
 
remedy of complaint […], in a case that was inadmissible, breaching the rules of due
 
process and the [internal objective] independence of judges” and by ordering a disciplinary
 
sanction to be applied to the Judges of the Court of Appeals of Temuco “for having a specific
 
200 Article 8(1)of the American Convention(Right to a Fair Trial) establishes that:
 
1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a
 
competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any
 
accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a
 
civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.
 
201 Article 25(1)of the American Convention(Right to Judicial Protection) provides:
 
1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a
 
competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by
 
the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may
 
have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.
 
57
 
interpretation” of the Civil Code. They considered that “through a remedy which by legal
 
stipulation does not constitute an instance, as is the case of the recurso de queja (remedy
 
of complaint), the Supreme Court heard and issued a ruling in a case that had already been
 
decided and processed by the pertinent authorities before the respective competent courts.”
 
Moreover, the representatives argued a violation of the right to judicial fairness because the
 
decision of the Supreme Court “is based on prejudice and lack[ed] a rational and juridical
 
basis.” Finally, they indicated that Ms. Atala does not wish “once again [...] to subject [the
 
girls] to the pressure of a custody trial [...] renouncing the return [... of] the girls to the
 
family unit with their mother.”
 
181. The State argued that “the Supreme Court of Justice did not exceed its powers, nor
 
did it abuse them when, after confirming the grave misconduct or abuse, and endorsing the
 
remedy of complaint, it decided to annul the appealed ruling, issuing instead a replacement
 
judgment.” On the other hand, the State denied a violation of Article 25(1) of the
 
Convention with the argument that the petitioner “could have and can still try to revoke the
 
decision of the Supreme Court by filing […] a new custody petition regarding the girls, with
 
the only requirement of proving that any of the circumstances that prompted the judgment
 
has changed,” given that the ruling that grants custody to the girls’ father “only has formal
 
res judicata.” It concluded that “in order to affect the right to appeal against a judicial
 
ruling, it is necessary to prove the existence of a violation of the due process when this was
 
issued, without the aggrieved party having a means of appeal, whatever that may be,
 
through which it may revert the alleged breach of fundamental rights.”
 
Considerations of the Court
 
182. In the instant case, the Supreme Court of Justice considered that the judges of the
 
Appeals Court of Temuco “committed a fault or abuse both in applying the legal provisions
 
that govern the matter, and in assessing the background of the case in which they issued
 
the judgment that gave rise to the remedy [of complaint]” 202.
 
183. In this regard, the Court noted that the argument of the representatives regarding
 
the wrongful acceptance of the remedy of complaint by the Supreme Court of Justice is
 
directly related to the alleged non-existence of a grave fault by the Court of Appeals of
 
Temuco. In this regard, it should be noted that the recurso de queja (remedy of complaint)
 
in Chile is established in Article 545 of the Organic Code of Courts.203 It is a disciplinary
 
202 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004 (File of appendices to the petition,
 
volume V, page 2673).
 
203 Cf. Article 545 of the Organic Code of Courts states: The sole purpose of the recurso of queja (remedy of
 
complaint or complaint appeal) is to correct serious faults or abuses committed in the issuance of a jurisdictional
 
ruling. It shall only be admissible when the fault or abuse is committed in an interlocutory decision that puts an
 
end to the case or makes its continuation impossible, and there is no ordinary or extraordinary remedy available,
 
without prejudice to the ability of the Supreme Court to act ex officio in the exercise of its disciplinary powers.
 
Final, first or single-instance rulings issued by arbitrators are exempted, in which case the recurso of queja shall be
 
admissible, in addition to the cassation appeal with respect to procedure. The decision that accepts the recurso of
 
queja shall contain precise considerations to demonstrate the fault or abuse, as well as the obvious and serious
 
errors and omissions that constitute them and that exist in the decision that produces the recurso, and shall
 
determine the measures conducive to remedying said fault or abuse. In no case may it modify, amend, or
 
invalidate judicial decisions with respect to which the law provides ordinary or extraordinary jurisdictional
 
remedies, unless a recurso of queja filed against a first or single instance final decision issued by arbiters or
 
arbitrators is involved. In the event that a superior court of justice, making use of its disciplinary authorities,
 
annuls a jurisdictional ruling it must apply the disciplinary measure or measures considered appropriate. In the
 
event that a superior court, making use of its disciplinary powers, invalidates a jurisdictional decision, it shall apply
 
the relevant disciplinary measure or measures. In such case, the chamber shall provide that the full court is
 
informed regarding the history for purposes of imposing the appropriate disciplinary measures, given the nature of
 
the faults or abuses, which may not be less than a private admonition” (Merits file volume XI, page 5398).
 
58
 
remedy that has its source in Article 82 of the Constitution204 and, in general is based on
 
the jurisprudential practice of the Superior Courts of Justice, the Courts of Appeals, and the
 
Supreme Court of Justice.205
 
184. In the opinion of the expert Marín, the practice of using the remedy of complaint as
 
a means to have judgments revised distorted the procedural system by using the cassation
 
appeal, as the natural jurisdictional appeal established in domestic law, to correct the errors
 
of lower court judges.206 According to the expert, the complaint appeal caused de facto the
 
creation of a third instance, where the Supreme Court distorted the facts proven in the
 
respective court and the way in which the judges had assessed said evidence.207
 
185. Furthermore, the Court notes that, according to the Chilean legal doctrine forwarded
 
by the State, the complaint appeal is defined as “the procedural juridical act directly
 
presented by a party before a higher Court and against the judge or judges who issued a
 
ruling in a given proceeding containing a serious fault or abuse, and requesting a prompt
 
remedy to the wrongdoing that prompted the filing of their appeal through its correction,
 
annulment, or invalidation, without detriment to the application of the appropriate
 
disciplinary sanctions, according to that Court, regarding the judge or judges against whom
 
the appeal was filed.”208 Said remedy is filed “directly before a Court of higher rank than the
 
one that issued the ruling with the serious fault or abuse, so that it may be considered and
 
resolved by that court.” It is not filed against a ruling, but against the judge or judges that
 
issued the ruling with a serious fault or abuse, so that it may be modified, corrected, or left
 
without effect. The appeal has not been “created to correct simple errors of interpretation,
 
but judicial faults or abuses that fall within the scope of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the
 
higher court. Therefore, it does not constitute an instance for the revision of all matters de
 
facto and de iure, but it only allows the superior court to examine if a serious fault or abuse
 
was committed. The higher court is empowered to revoke, correct, or invalidate the
 
ruling209. The fault or abuse committed by a judge may stem from the formal breach of the
 
law, an erroneous interpretation of the law, or a faulty assessment of the background of the
 
proceedings210.
 
204 Article 82 of the Political Constitution states that “the Supreme Court is entrusted with the executive,
 
correctional and economic supervision of all the Courts of the nation. The Constitutional Court, the Elections
 
Qualifying Court and the Regional Electoral Courts are exempted from this norm” (Merits file, volume XI, page
 
5393).
 
205 Cf. Written report of the expert Dr. Juan Carlos Marín González on complaint appeals in Chile (Merits file,
 
volume XI, page 5393 and 5411).
 
206 Cf. Written report of the expert Dr. Juan Carlos Marín González on complaint appeals in Chile (Merits file,
 
volume XI, page 5411).
 
207 In this regard, expert Marín cited the legislative reasons for the approval of law 19.374 of 1995, which
 
modified the complaint appeal and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice, to explain that Chilean
 
legislators modified the complaint appeal with the objective of limiting this disciplinary recourse and preventing the
 
distortion of the procedural system and of the jurisdictional function of the superior courts of justice, in order to
 
prevent abusive practices and, therefore, the revision of trials through a third instance that openly breaches the
 
principle of bilateralism of the hearing. Cf. Written report of the expert Dr. Juan Carlos Marín González on the
 
complaint appeal in Chile (Merits file, volume XI, page 5397, 5398, and 5400).
 
208 Cf. Mario Mosquera Ruíz, Cristián Maturana Miquel, Los Recursos Procesales, 2010, Juridical Editorial of
 
Chile, Santiago, Chile, page 383, as documentary evidence enclosed by the State with the brief on final arguments
 
(Merits file, volume XII, page 5945).
 
209 Cf. Mario Mosquera Ruíz and Cristián Maturana Miquel, Los Recursos Procesales, pages 383 and 384,
 
supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., pages 5945 and 5946.
 
210 Cf. Mario Mosquera Ruíz, Cristián Maturana Miquel, Los Recursos Procesales, page 387, supra note Error!
 
Bookmark not defined., volume XII, page 5949.
 
59
 
186. In considering whether or not, in this case, the guarantees of judicial independence
 
were ignored by accepting the remedy of complaint, the Court recalls that one of the main
 
objectives of the separation of public powers is to guarantee the independence of judges,
 
for the purpose of preventing the judicial system and its members from being subject to
 
wrongful restrictions in the exercise of their role by bodies foreign to the Judicial Power or
 
even by senior judges that carry out review or appeal duties.211 Moreover, the guarantee of
 
judicial independence includes guarantees against external pressures212, and therefore the
 
State must abstain from undue interference with the Judiciary or its members, that is, in
 
relation to a specific judge, and must prevent such intrusions and investigate and sanction
 
those who commit them.213
 
187. The Court considers that in this case there are not sufficient evidentiary elements to
 
infer the existence of external pressures against the judges who considered the case of the
 
ruling against Ms. Atala. On the other hand, given that the judges of the Court of Appeals of
 
Temuco who were sanctioned for the remedy of complaint are not alleged victims in the
 
present case, this limits any ruling that the Court may issue in relation to a possible
 
violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention for said decision to sanction.
 
188. Finally, the Court has previously emphasized that, since it is not a fourth instance, it
 
cannot assess the evidence regarding which of the parents of the three girls offers them a
 
better home (supra para. 66). Similarly, since this Court is not a fourth instance, it cannot
 
issue a ruling on the dispute between different sectors of the local doctrine on the scope of
 
domestic law regarding the requirements for the admissibility of a remedy of complaint.
 
189. On the other hand, regarding the Supreme Court’s impartiality in issuing its decision
 
on the remedy of complaint, the Court recalls that judges who intervene in a particular
 
dispute are required to approach the facts of the case impartially, without subjectivity or
 
prejudice and, at the same time, offer sufficient guarantees of an objective nature that
 
would eliminate any concerns that a defendant or the community might have regarding a
 
lack of impartiality. While personal or subjective impartiality is presumed unless there is
 
evidence to the contrary, for example proof that a member of a court or the judge has
 
shown personal prejudice or partialities against the parties, the so-called objective evidence
 
consists in determining whether the questioned judge provided convincing elements that
 
would dispel any legitimate fears or well-based suspicions of prejudice regarding their
 
conduct. Thus, a judge must appear to act without being subject to influences, incentives,
 
211 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, para. 55 and Case
 
of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 67.
 
212 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31,
 
2001. Series C No. 71, para. 75, and Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para.
 
80. See also ECHR. Case of Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, (No. 7819/77; 7878/77), Judgment of June
 
28, 1984, para. 78, and Case of Langborger v. Sweden, (No. 11179/84), Judgment of June 22, 1989, para. 32. See
 
also Principles 2, 3, and 4 of the Basic Principles of the United National regarding the Independence of the
 
Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
 
Offenders, held in Milan on August 26-September 6, 1985, and confirmed by the General Assembly in resolutions
 
40/32 of November 29 1985 and 40/146 of December 13, 1985.
 
213 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 146.
 
60
 
pressures, threats, or interference, direct or indirect,214 but instead only and exclusively
 
according to the Law.215
 
190. The Inter-American Court points out that, while it is true that in the case at hand
 
some violations to the Convention have been declared, a violation of Article 8(1) of the
 
Convention for the alleged lack of judicial impartiality must be established based on specific,
 
concrete evidentiary elements that indicate a situation in which the judges have clearly
 
allowed themselves to be influenced by aspects or criteria outside of the legal provisions.
 
191. The Court finds that neither the Commission nor the representatives have provided
 
specific evidence to disprove the presumption of the judges’ subjective impartiality. Nor are
 
there any convincing elements that might call into question the objective impartiality of the
 
Villarica Court’s decision regarding provisional custody or of the judgment of the Supreme
 
Court. An interpretation of the provisions of the Chilean Civil Code in a manner contrary to
 
the American Convention in matters of child custody involving a homosexual individual is
 
not enough, in itself, for this Court to declare a lack of objective impartiality.
 
192. Therefore, the Court considers that the State did not violate the judicial guarantees
 
recognized in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to the decision of the Supreme
 
Court of Justice and the Villarrica Court in this case.
 
2. Right of the girls M., V., and R. to be heard and to have their opinions be taken into
 
consideration
 
Arguments of the parties
 
193. The Commission noted as “particularly serious in the custody proceedings, the
 
Supreme Court’s failure to take the girls’ preferences and needs into account, in contrast
 
what occurred in the lower courts.” It added that “the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile
 
made no efforts to hear the girls.”
 
194. The representatives argued that even though “there are procedural mechanisms
 
carefully designed to make sure that children’s views are taken into consideration in the
 
decisions that affect them and that decisions are in fact made in their interest, before that
 
of any other person that intervenes[,] [t]he Supreme Court completely ignored these
 
mechanisms and arbitrarily decided to give greater weight to opinions based on prejudice
 
and stereotypes, to the detriment of the expert opinion of professionals and, even more
 
important, of the girls themselves, unlike the action of the lower-instance courts.”
 
195. The State indicated that “in the context of considering a mechanism of appeal, such
 
as a remedy of complaint, there is no procedural opportunity to repeat the statements given
 
by the girls, and this is unnecessary based on due process. From the standpoint of the girls’
 
interest and protection it is counterproductive, as well as unnecessary, to require them to
 
make another statement in the same proceedings regarding their parents’ separation and
 
their desire to live with one of them, thereby increasing their level of victimization.” The
 
State added that “the girls were heard by the lower courts and the Supreme Court had
 
access to these prior statements.” Furthermore, it indicated that, “on the other hand, the
 
214 Principle 2 of the Basic Principles of the United Nations regarding the Independence of the Judiciary, supra
 
note 212.
 
215 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 56.
 
61
 
principle of recognizing the girls’ autonomy and subjectivity in no case implies, nor can it
 
seek to impose upon them, the final responsibility of deciding their fate. […] When there is
 
conflict between the views and wishes of the boy, girl, or teenager and their “best interest”,
 
[...], and their compatibility is not possible, their interest must necessarily prevail over their
 
wishes, since otherwise the special regimen of protection they enjoy would no longer have a
 
reason to exist.”
 
Considerations of the Court
 
196. The Court emphasizes that children enjoy the rights established in the American
 
Convention, in addition to the special measures of protection contemplated in 19 of the
 
Convention, which must be defined according to the circumstances of each specific case.216
 
In the instant case, the Court notes that Article 8(1) of the American Convention embodies
 
every person’s the right to be heard, including children, in proceedings in which their rights
 
are determined. This right must be interpreted in light of Article 12 of the Convention on the
 
Rights of the Child,217 which contains appropriate stipulations on the child’s right to be
 
heard, for the purpose of facilitating the child’s intervention according to his age and
 
maturity and ensuring that it does not harm his genuine interest218.
 
197. Specifically, General Comment No. 12 of 2009 of the United Nations Committee on
 
the Rights of the Child emphasizes the relationship between the “best interest of the child”
 
and the right to be heard, when it states that “there can be no correct application of Article
 
3 if the components of Article 12 are not respected [(best interest of the child)]. Likewise,
 
Article 3 reinforces the functionality of Article 12 facilitating the essential role of children in
 
all decisions affecting their lives.” 219
 
198. In order to determine the scope of the terms described in Article 12 of that
 
Convention, the Committee clarified a number of points such as: i) “States parties cannot
 
begin with the assumption that a child is incapable of expressing her or his own views;”220
 
ii) “it is not necessary that the child has comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of the
 
matter affecting her or him, but that she or he has sufficient understanding to be capable of
 
216 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of February 24, 2011, Series C No. 221,
 
para. 121.
 
217 Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states: 1. States Parties shall assure to the child
 
who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the
 
child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For
 
this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative
 
proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner
 
consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
 
218 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, para. 99. For its part, the United Nations, Committee on
 
the Rights of the Child has established that the right "to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings
 
affecting the child" implies that “this provision applies to all relevant judicial proceedings affecting the child,
 
without limitation”. United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12 (2009). The
 
right of the child to be heard, CRC/C/GC/12, July 20, 2009, para. 32. In particular, UNICEF has indicated that “‘any
 
judicial […] proceedings affecting the child’ covers a very wide range of court hearings, including all civil
 
proceedings such as divorce, custody, care and adoption proceedings, name-changing, judicial applications relating
 
to place of residence, religion, education, disposal of money and so forth, judicial decision-making on nationality,
 
immigration and refugee status, and criminal proceedings; it also covers States’ involvement in international
 
courts.” UNICEF, Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Third edition fully
 
revised) 2007, p. 156.
 
219 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, para. 74.
 
220 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, para. 20
 
62
 
appropriately forming her or his own views on the matter”221; iii) the child can express her
 
or his views without pressure and can choose whether or not she or he wants to exercise
 
her or his right to be heard; iv) “implementation of the right of the child to express her or
 
his views requires that the child be informed about the matters, options and possible
 
decisions to be taken and their consequences by those who are responsible for hearing the
 
child, and by the child’s parents or guardian;”222 v) “the capacity of the child […]has to be
 
assessed in order to give due weight to her or his views, or to communicate to the child the
 
way in which those views have influenced the outcome of the process;”223 vi) “children’s
 
levels of understanding are not uniformly linked to their biological age,” for which reason
 
the maturity of the child must be determined based on “the capacity […]to express their
 
views on issues in a reasonable and independent manner” 224.
 
199. On the other hand, the Court reiterates that children exercise their rights
 
progressively as they develop a greater level of personal autonomy225. Consequently, those
 
responsible for applying the law, whether in the administrative or judicial sphere, must take
 
into account the specific conditions of the child and his or her best interests to decide on the
 
child’s participation, as appropriate, in determining his or her rights. This consideration will
 
seek as much access as possible by the minor to the examination of his or her own case226.
 
Likewise, the Court considers that children should be informed of their right to be heard
 
directly, or through a representative, if they so wish. In this regard, where a conflict of
 
interests arises between the mother and the father, the State must guarantee, as far as
 
possible, that the child’s interests are represented by someone outside said conflict.
 
200. In this regard, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has emphasized that Article
 
12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child not only establishes the right of each child
 
to express his views in all matters affecting him, but also includes the subsequent right to
 
have these views taken into consideration, according to the child’s age and maturity227. It is
 
not sufficient to listen to the child; the child’s views must be seriously considered when he
 
or she is capable of forming his or her own opinion, and for this reason the views of the
 
child must be assessed on a case-by-case basis228. If the child is capable of forming his or
 
her own views in a reasonable and independent manner, the decision maker must consider
 
the child’s views as a significant factor in the settlement of the issue229. Therefore, in the
 
context of judicial decisions on custody, all legislation on separation and divorce must
 
protect the child’s right to be heard by those responsible for making decisions230.
 
201. In the instant case, the Court notes that on April 8, 2003 the Juvenile Court of
 
Villarrica heard M., V., and R., in a private hearing and that “records of the private hearing
 
221 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, para. 21
 
222 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, para. 25
 
223 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, para. 28
 
224 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, para. 30
 
225 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 7, supra note 171, para. 17.
 
226 Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, para. 102
 
227 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, para. 15.
 
228 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, paras. 28 y 29.
 
229 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, para. 44.
 
230 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, paras. 28 y 29.
 
63
 
were kept in a closed envelope in the Court’s merits box”231. In addition, the ruling on the
 
provisional custody petition by the Juvenile Court of Villarrica on May 2, 2003, stated
 
“[t]hat, as recorded in the main custody file, the girls were heard at a private hearing” 232.
 
202. For its part, the judgment of the lower court indicated “[i]t is proven in the records
 
kept in the court’s safe that the minors were heard by this [Court]. In this hearing it was
 
confirmed that the three minors wish for their parents to get back together, and in the last
 
of the hearings held on October 8, 2003, [R.] and [V.] expressed their desire to go back to
 
living with their mother, and in the case of [M.] the court only detected a slight preference
 
for the mother figure”233. Furthermore, the Court clarified that “the hearings ordered to
 
listen to the girls had the exclusive purpose of complying with the mandate of […] Article 12
 
of the Convention of the Rights of the Child and are simply an element to be considered, but
 
they do not determine the decision […], by reason of their young age [the girls] are not in a
 
position to issue a legally valid opinion regarding their situation and considering also that
 
the opinion of the minors can be “affected artificially by outside factors that influence them,
 
distort them, or make them unsuited to the proposed goal”234. Finally, the Juvenile Court
 
took into consideration a series of psychological reports which it ordered to determine the
 
girls’ psychological and emotional status235.
 
203. In this regard, the Court finds that the first instance court in the custody proceeding
 
complied with the obligations arising from the child’s right to be heard in a judicial
 
proceeding that affects them, since it is clearly stated that the views of the three girls were
 
taken into account, bearing in mind their maturity and capacity at that time.
 
204. On the other hand, the Court notes that there is no evidence in the custody case file
 
stating that the girls were heard again by the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile in the
 
context of the decision on the remedy of complaint, nor is there any mention in the ruling
 
issued by the Supreme Court regarding the decision to set aside the wishes expressed by
 
the girls during the proceedings.
 
205. In the present case, the Court takes note of the unique nature of the remedy of
 
complaint, which is mainly a disciplinary recourse against lower court judges and in which
 
no evidence other than at already presented during the entire custody hearing is gathered
 
(supra para. 185). Likewise, this Court cautions that a child must not be interviewed more
 
often than necessary, particularly when disturbing events are investigated, since the
 
process of “hearing” a child may be difficult and may cause traumatic effects in the child236.
 
Therefore, the Court does not consider that the Supreme Court needed to hold a new
 
hearing in the context of the decision on the remedy of complaint to hear the girls express
 
their preferences regarding which parent they would rather live with, if there were already
 
several pieces of evidence in the custody case file that confirmed their wishes.
 
231 Records of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of April 8, 2003 (File of appendices to the petition, volume I,
 
page 350).
 
232 Decision on the provisional custody petition by the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, May 2, 2003, considering
 
paragraph No 7. (File of appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2565).
 
233 Cf. Judgment of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of October 29, 2003, considering clause No. 36 (File of
 
appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2605). 234 Cf. Judgment of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of October 29, 2003, considering clause No. 36 (File of
 
appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2605).
 
235 Cf. Judgment of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of October 29, 2003, considering clause No. 36 (File of
 
appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2589).
 
236 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12, supra note 218, para. 24.
 
64
 
206. However, the fact that a judicial authority is not required to gather the testimony of
 
a child once again in the context of a judicial proceeding, does not release it from the
 
obligation to duly consider and assess, in one way or another, the views expressed by the
 
child in the lower courts, according to the child’s age and maturity. If appropriate, the
 
respective judicial authority must argue specifically why it will not take into account the
 
child’s views. In this regard, the expert García Méndez stated that:
 
In any type of conflict between children’s views and those of the parental authority or institutional
 
authorities, […] the child’s opinion cannot be thrown out discretionally. In other words, this means that
 
[…] very sophisticated arguments must be developed to eventually oppose the children’s views. [T]he
 
child’s opinion does not automatically create case law […]. But similarly, the child’s views cannot be
 
automatically disregarded without offering weighty and profound arguments237.
 
207. Likewise, the expert Cillero Bruñol stated that:
 
[There is] an obligation [on the part of the state authorities] to consider their opinion in deliberations that
 
lead to a decision that affects children. […] [T]he adults responsible for the decision must not decide
 
arbitrarily when the child says something relevant to the decision […]. […] If the children are sufficiently
 
developed in their opinions and points of view, these must prevail in matters affecting them, unless there
 
are very serious reasons against them. This means that if the children’s opinions are well-based, precise,
 
with sufficient knowledge of the facts and the consequences they imply, they must prima facie prevail
 
over other arguments to determine the decision that will affect the child in what refers to the facts and
 
states that involve him. This priority is demanded by the principle of the best interest of the child of Article
 
3 of the [Convention on the Rights of the Child]. The foregoing does not mean that the determination of
 
the child’s best interest is always going to coincide in the specific case with the child’s opinions, even when
 
the child has the required age and maturity to have his own opinion […] The judge or person responsible
 
for the proceedings must reasonable assess the weight of the child’s opinions, in relation to their
 
consequences for the totality of their fundamental rights, as well as with regard to the level of maturity of
 
the child, but this assessment […] demands a superior argumentative burden for the decision that is
 
different to the child’s opinion238.
 
208. The Court finds that the Supreme Court of Justice did not explain in its judgment
 
how it assessed or took into consideration the statements and preferences expressed by the
 
girls and included in the case file. Indeed, this Court notes that the Supreme Court did not
 
adopt a decision that considered the relevance attributed by said Court to the living
 
arrangements preferred by the minors and the reasons why it did not rule in accordance
 
with the wishes expressed by the three girls. On the contrary, the Supreme Court simply
 
based its decision on the alleged best interest of the three minors without giving reasons for
 
why it considered it legitimate to contradict the wishes expressed by the girls during the
 
custody proceeding, particularly given the connection between a child’s right to participate
 
and the goal of complying with the principle of the child’s best interest (supra para. 197).
 
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the aforementioned decision by the Supreme Court of
 
Justice violated the girls’ right to be heard and be duly taken into account, embodied in
 
Article 8.1, in connection with Articles 19 and 1(1)of the American Convention, to the
 
detriment of the girls M., V. and R.
 
VI
 
RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND THE PROHIBITION OF NON-DISCRIMINATION,
 
RIGHT TO A PRIVATE LIFE AND RIGHT TO JUDICAL GUARANTEES
 
237 Statement by expert García Méndez at the hearing in the present case held on August 23, 2011.
 
238 Expert report offered by Miguel Cillero Bruñol on the treatment of the principle of the best interest of the
 
child in International Law, July 2011 (Merits file, volume II, pages 935, 939, 940)
 
65
 
IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS IN
 
RELATION TO THE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION
 
209. One of the aspects of the dispute is the disciplinary proceeding carried out against
 
Ms. Atala. Regarding this matter, this chapter will establish the proven facts in that case and
 
will then analyze the controversies surrounding: i) the right to equality; ii) private life, and
 
iii) judicial guarantees.
 
C. Facts proven regarding the disciplinary investigation against Ms. Atala
 
210. On March 17, 2003 the President of the Committee of Judges of the Court of Oral
 
Trials in criminal matters of Villarrica informed the Visiting Minister of the Court of Appeals
 
of Temuco, Mr. Lenin Lillo, “of a specific situation that occurred on the 12th” of March, 2003.
 
In said brief, the President of the Committee of Judges stated that Ms. Atala had requested
 
that one of her subordinates “transcribe, draw up and print official letters on behalf of the
 
Juvenile Court of Villarrica, requesting proceedings in the custody case […] in which said
 
superior judge [was] a litigating party”. Moreover, he stated that “he held a private meeting
 
[with] the Judge Atala Riffo […] warning of the inappropriateness of her actions and her
 
interference in the sphere of another Court, where she [was] not a judge but a defendant” 239.
 
211. On that same day and on March 19, 2003, the full Court of Appeals of Temuco
 
appointed Judge Lenin Lillo240 to conduct an extraordinary visit to the criminal court of
 
Villarrica where Ms. Atala was serving as a judge. It was stated that the visit “respond[ed]
 
to two basic facts: one, the publications that appeared in the newspapers Las Últimas
 
Noticias […] and La Cuarta […] which mentioned the fact that [Ms.] Atala was a lesbian”241
 
and the other concerned the facts described in the complaint filed on March 17, 2003.
 
212. After the visit to the Court where Ms. Atala served as a judge, Mr. Lillo filed a report
 
before the Court of Appeals of Temuco,242 making reference to three alleged irregularities,
 
namely: i) “use of resources and employees to comply with proceedings ordered by the
 
Judge […] of the Juvenile Court;” ii) “improper use of the court’s seal,” and iii) “publications
 
made in the press.” Regarding the first point, he described the facts reported by the
 
President of the Committee of Judges and concluded that said facts “were, in the opinion of
 
[that] visitor especially serious given that Ms. […] Atala […], making use of resources and
 
employees of the Court of which she forms part, has become directly involved in complying
 
with actions ordered in the trial that is taking place in the Juvenile Court.” Regarding the
 
second point, Mr. Lillo stated that “it was especially serious because Judge Karen Atala had
 
overstepped her powers by using elements of the Court that are under the responsibility of
 
third parties in order to favor people related to her circle of friends.”
 
239 Brief of the President of the Committee of Judges of the Court of Oral Criminal Trials of Villarrica, March
 
17, 2003 (Merits file, volume XIII, page 7040).
 
240 Report prepared by the Minister Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco of April 2, 2003 (Merits file,
 
volume XII, page 5927).
 
241 Report prepared by the Minister Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco of April 2, 2003 (Merits file,
 
volume XII, page 5927).
 
242 Report prepared by the Minister Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco of April 2, 2003 (Merits file,
 
volume XII, pages 5927 to 5934).
 
66
 
213. Finally, Mr. Lillo referred to the publications made in the newspapers “Las Últimas
 
Noticias” and “La Cuarta”, informing the public of the custody suit and referring to Ms.
 
Atala’s “lesbian relationship.”
 
214. Referring to these matters in his report, Mr. Lillo concluded that:
 
This visitor is not inclined to issue value judgments regarding the sexual inclination of Judge Atala.
 
However, it is impossible to sidestep the fact that her peculiar emotional relationship has transcended the
 
private sphere with the appearance of the above-mentioned publications, which clearly damages the
 
image of both Ms. Atala and the Judiciary. All the foregoing takes on a seriousness that merits the notice
 
of the Ilmo Court243.
 
215. On April 2, 2003, the Court of Appeals of Temuco approved the visit carried out by
 
Mr. Lillo and filed charges against Ms. Atala244. Subsequently, on May 9, 2003 the Court of
 
Appeals issued “a severe warning for the use of resources and staff to comply with
 
proceedings ordered by the Judge of the Juvenile Court […] in a case in which she is one of
 
the parties to the dispute” 245.
 
D. The right to equality and the prohibition of non-discrimination
 
Arguments of the parties
 
216. The representatives argued that Ms. Atala “had a stable relationship with her
 
partner that was no different from other couples, except for the fact that her partner was of
 
the same sex,” thus “the order to investigate and carry out a visit to the court where Judge
 
Atala worked was based exclusively on a discriminatory rejection of her sexual orientation.”
 
217. The State argued that “the report submitted by Judge Lillo to the full Court of
 
Appeals of Temuco includes a number of serious precedents that called for a ‘severe
 
warning´” and that his warning to Ms. Atala “is not at all related to her homosexuality, but
 
instead concerns complaints and facts verified by Judge Lillo.”
 
Considerations of the Court
 
218. The Court notes that the Court of Appeals of Temuco received a complaint on March
 
17, 2003 against Ms. Atala for the use of implements and employees of the Court for
 
personal matters (supra para. 210). However, the Court notes that, according to the visiting
 
judge’s report, other considerations were expressed as the reason for carrying out the visit
 
to Ms. Atala’s work place. These expressly referred to Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation since
 
they were related to “the reports published in the newspapers “La Cuarta” on February 28,
 
[2003] and “Las Últimas Noticias” dated March 1, [2003], in which the public was informed
 
of the content of a custody claim filed by [Mr. López] against his wife […] because the latter
 
maintained a lesbian relationship with another woman” 246. Thus, one of the reasons for the
 
visit to Ms. Atala’s work place was to confirm the press reports about her sexual orientation.
 
243 Report prepared by Minister Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco, April 2, 2003 (Merits file,
 
volume XII, page 5934).
 
244 The Court of Appeals of Temuco stated that it “approved the visit carried out by Judge Lenin Lillo […] and
 
charges are filed against Ms. Karen Atala Riffo on the three counts mentioned in the report by the visitor.” Decision
 
of the Court of Appeals of Temuco, April 2, 2003 (Merits file, volume XII, page 5935).
 
245 Ruling of the Court of Appeals of Temuco, May 9, 2003 (Merits file, volume XII, page 5937).
 
246 Report prepared by Judge Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco, April 2, 2003 (Merits file, volume
 
XII, page 5934).
 
67
 
219. The Court notes that the disciplinary investigation and the extraordinary visit
 
mentioned have their legal basis in Articles 544 No. 4,247 559,248 and 560249 of the Organic
 
Code of Courts. Since one of the purposes of the visit was to investigate Ms. Atala’s sexual
 
orientation based on the press reports, the Court finds that Ms Atala received a
 
differentiated and unlawful treatment by having her sexual orientation and her relationship
 
with a person of the same sex included as an aspect to be investigated in the disciplinary
 
proceedings.
 
220. Finally, the State argued that the “warning” issued by the Court of Temuco was
 
based “solely” on “the use of resources and employees to carry out proceedings diligences
 
ordered” by the court in charge of the custody trial, and therefore Ms. Atala was not being
 
sanctioned, according to that argument, for her sexual orientation. However, the Court
 
notes that the report prepared by the visiting judge, which was later approved by the Court
 
of Appeals of Temuco, and based on which charges were filed against Ms. Atala, stated that
 
“it is impossible to ignore the fact that her peculiar emotional relationship has transcended
 
the private sphere with the appearance of the aforementioned publications, which clearly
 
damages the image of both [Ms.] Atala and the Judicial Branch. All the foregoing takes on a
 
seriousness that merits the Court’s notice”250. Therefore, although the Court of Temuco did
 
not expressly sanction Ms. Atala for her sexual orientation, that aspect was included in the
 
considerations of the report prepared by the visiting judge, whose legitimacy was not
 
disavowed or questioned by the Court of Temuco.
 
221. Now, regarding the legitimate purpose pursued by said investigation, the Court notes
 
that the report submitted did not clearly state the purpose of the visit with respect to the
 
inquiry regarding sexual orientation, since it only referred to the press reports published. In
 
that regard, although the legitimate purpose was not made explicit in the report, from the
 
comments made therein it is possible to infer that the inquiry regarding Ms. Atala’s sexual
 
orientation sought to protect the “image of the judicial branch.” However, the alleged
 
protection of the judiciary’s image cannot justify a difference in treatment based on sexual
 
orientation. Furthermore, the purpose served by making a difference in treatment of this
 
nature must be concrete and not abstract. In this specific case, the Court does not find any
 
connection whatsoever between the desire to protect the “image of the judicial branch” and
 
247 Article 544 No. 4, upon which the Report prepared by Judge Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco
 
of April 2, 2003 is based (Merits file, volume XII, page 5927), states that: “the disciplinary powers that correspond
 
to the Supreme Court or the Courts of Appeals must be exercised especially regarding officials of the judiciary that
 
are in any of the following situations: [...] 4. When, due to irregularity in their moral behavior or due to vices that
 
are not well regarded by the public, they compromise the decorum of their ministry. Available at:
 
<nowiki>http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=25563</nowiki> (last access February 20, 2012), electronic address provided by
 
the State (Merits file, volume XII, page 5914).
 
248 Article 559 states that: The Superior Courts of Justice will order extraordinary visits by any of its ministers
 
at the courts within their respective jurisdictional territory, provided this is required for a better judicial service.
 
Available at: <nowiki>http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=25563</nowiki> (last access February 20, 2012) (Merits file, volume
 
XII, page 5914).
 
249 Article 560 states: The Court will extraordinarily order these visits in the following cases: 1. When it
 
concerns civil cases that may affect international relations and over which the courts of justice have competence;
 
2. When it concerns an investigation of facts or crimes that must be heard by the military justice system and that
 
may affect international relationships or that cause public alarm and they demand a prompt repression due to their
 
seriousness and damaging consequences, and 3. Whenever it is necessary to investigate facts that affect the
 
behavior of judges in the exercise of their duties and when there is a notable delay in the processing of the matters
 
submitted to said judges. Available at: <nowiki>http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=25563</nowiki> (last access February 20,
 
2012) (Merits file, volume XII, page 5914). 250 Report prepared by Judge Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco of April 2, 2003 (Merits file,
 
volume XII, page 5934).
 
68
 
Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation. A person’s sexual orientation or the exercise thereof cannot
 
provide grounds, under any circumstances, to undertake a disciplinary proceeding, since
 
there is no connection between the correct performance of a person’s professional duties
 
and their sexual orientation.
 
222. Therefore, since differentiation in a disciplinary inquiry based on sexual orientation is
 
discriminatory, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 24 in conjunction with
 
Article 1(1)of the American Convention to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo.
 
C. Right to private life
 
Arguments of the parties
 
223. The representatives stated that the investigation amounted to interference with the
 
private life of Ms. Atala, since her “office was searched […], including her computer and
 
printer, staff members of the court [were] interviewed […] on possible visits [Ms.] Atala had
 
received from women [and Ms.] Atala was questioned about her private life and her
 
relationship with her partner.” They added that “[Ms.] Atala was unlawfully exposed before
 
her social and professional community, violating her private life.”
 
224. The State indicated that the visit “did not result in any administrative sanctions
 
against [Ms.] Atala, since the Court of Appeals of Temuco considered that her private
 
activities and her family life did not hinder her judicial work.”
 
Considerations of the Court
 
225. As mentioned previously (supra para. 161), Article 11 of the Convention prohibits
 
any arbitrary or abusive interference with the private life of persons, and therefore the
 
realm of privacy is exempt and immune to abusive or arbitrary intrusion or aggression by
 
the public authorities251. According to the Court’s jurisprudence, to determine whether there
 
was arbitrary interference with private life it is necessary to analyze, among other
 
requirements, the legality and purpose of the measure.
 
226. In this case, Ms. Atala stated the following regarding the visit paid to her work place:
 
“the minister [Lillo] sat down at my desk, in my office, checked my personal computer, checked all the
 
websites I had visited. Afterwards he questioned all the staff members at the Court, one by one, and also
 
questioned the cleaning staff and then my fellow judges because I was member of a three-judge collegiate
 
and he went to the Court of Guarantees, because I was a member of the Oral Criminal Court. He
 
questioned the two judges there as well as the secretary of the Court of Villarrica. That is, he questioned 6
 
colleagues asking them whether or not I was a lesbian” 252.
 
227. Faced with this treatment, Ms. Atala stated that:
 
“I felt deeply humiliated, exposed, as if I had been stripped naked and thrown into a public square”253.
 
251 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 177, para. 194 and Case Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra
 
note 28, para. 48.
 
252 Statement by Ms. Karen Atala Riffo rendered before the Inter-American Court at a public hearing in the
 
present case.
 
253 Statement by Ms. Karen Atala Riffo rendered before the Inter-American Court at a public hearing in the
 
present case.
 
69
 
228. Ms. Atala also explained that, prior to the extraordinary visit, the Court of
 
Appeals of Temuco had sent the officials of the Court of Villarrica a questionnaire with
 
questions to investigate Ms. Atala’s sexual condition254. These statements were not
 
contested by the State.
 
229. Specifically, the Court notes that in the report on Judge Lillo’s visit the following
 
facts were stated as conclusions: i) that Ms. Atala “began to be visited in her office by a
 
large number of women starting in mid 2002,”255 including her current partner “with whom
 
she would spend hours in her office;” ii) that she asked a court employee to “sketch a ring
 
based on some models she gave him[,]downloaded from the internet from a page called
 
“breaking the silence”, which was managed by sexual minorities;” iii) that Ms. Atala “was
 
visited at the Court by” her partner’s “parents” and that she introduced them “as her in-
 
laws;” iv) that Ms. Atala used the Court’s fax “to send information about sexual minorities to
 
institutions,” and v) that Ms. Atala “openly expressed her homosexuality” to Mr. Lillo and
 
“defended her determination to openly communicate it to the Court’s officials and Senior
 
Judges”256.
 
230. The Court finds that, although the disciplinary investigation began with legal
 
grounds257 and did not end with any disciplinary sanctions against Ms. Atala for her sexual
 
orientation, it did investigate this in an arbitrary manner, which constitutes interference with
 
Ms. Atala’s right to privacy, and which extends to her professional sphere. Therefore, the
 
State is responsible for violating the right to privacy, recognized in Article 11(2) in
 
conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Karen Atala
 
Riffo.
 
D. Judicial guarantees
 
231. The Commission described the “content of the extraordinary visit ordered by the
 
Court of Appeals of Temuco as an example of the lack of fairness and the discriminatory
 
prejudice existing in the Chilean judicial power at the time of the custody trial.” It also
 
argued that “the impact of this visit on the custody case with regard to prejudgment, since
 
Judge Lenin Lillo ended up participating in the granting of the injunction on November 24,
 
2003”.
 
232. The representatives argued that “[w]hen a Court of Appeals of the State of Chile
 
decides to begin a disciplinary proceeding against a judge and appoints a minister to
 
conduct an extraordinary visit because her sexual orientation has been leaked [in the
 
media], there is also a violation of impartiality, since the visit is a procedure that originates
 
 
254 Statement by Ms. Karen Atala Riffo rendered before the Inter-American Court at a public hearing in the
 
present case.
 
255 Report prepared by Judge Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco of April 2, 2003, supra note Error!
 
Bookmark not defined., page 5933.
 
256 Report prepared by Judge Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco of April 2, 2003, supra note Error!
 
Bookmark not defined., page 5934.
 
257 See disciplinary standards (supra para. 219).
 
70
 
due to prejudice.” They also argued that the “violation of the right to be judged by an
 
impartial court occurred from the moment that, on November 24, 2003, two judges who
 
had issued a negative opinion regarding Judge Atala’s sexual orientation participated in
 
granting the injunction.” In particular, the representatives stated that “Judges Lenin Lillo
 
and Archibaldo Loyola were legally disqualified” from participating in granting the injunction
 
issued against the lower-court ruling, since “the first [had] act[ed] as visiting judge in the
 
context of the disciplinary investigation and the second had “directly urged [Ms.] Atala to
 
renounce [custody of] her daughters.”
 
233. The State did not comment on the allegations regarding the extraordinary visit. At
 
the same time it argued that “it is not accurate that the respective chamber of the Court of
 
Appeals of Temuco […] included two Judges legally disqualified to act, given that since the
 
grounds for disqualification were not invoked, it is understood that the party with the right
 
to invoke it waived the exercise of their right.”
 
Considerations of the Court
 
234. The Court reiterates that the personal impartiality of a judge is to be presumed,
 
unless there is evidence to the contrary (supra para. 189)258. In an analysis of subjective
 
impartiality, the Court should attempt to determine the personal interests or reasons of a
 
judge in a particular case259. As to the type of evidence required to prove subjective
 
impartiality, the European Court has indicated the need to ascertain whether the judge has
 
displayed hostility or ill will if he has arranged to have a case assigned to himself for
 
personal reasons260.
 
235. The Court has already established (supra paras. 222 and 230) that the extraordinary
 
visit affected Ms. Atala’s right to equality, non-discrimination and private life. Likewise, it
 
has concluded that it was discriminatory to include Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation or her
 
relationship with her partner in the disciplinary investigation, since this had no bearing
 
whatsoever on her professional performance (supra para. 221 and therefore there were no
 
grounds to conclude that Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation could result in a disciplinary offense.
 
However, the report on the visit to her work place determined that the findings regarding
 
Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation “take on a great seriousness that merits the Court’s [of
 
Appeals of Temuco] notice. (supra para. 214).
 
236. Furthermore, the Court notes the circumstances in which the extraordinary visit took
 
place, since prior to and during the visit, officials and employees of the Court of Villarrica
 
258 In European case law, see ECHR, Case Kyprianou v. Cyprus, (No. 73797/01), Judgment of January 27,
 
2004, para. 119 (“In applying the subjective test, the Court has consistently held that the personal impartiality of a
 
judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary”), citing ECHR, Case of Hauschildt v. Denmark, (No.
 
10486/83), Judgment of May 24, 1989, para. 47.
 
259 Cf. ECHR, Case Kyprianou, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 118 (“a subjective
 
approach, that is endeavoring to ascertain the personal conviction or interest of a given judge in a particular
 
case”).
 
260 Cf. ECHR, Case Kyprianou, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 119 (“As regards the type of
 
proof required, the Court has, for example, sought to ascertain whether a judge has displayed hostility or ill will or
 
has arranged to have a case assigned to himself for personal”). Also see ECHR, Case Bellizzi v. Malta, (No.
 
46575/09), Judgment of June 21, 2011. Final, November 28, 2011, para. 52 and the Case of Cubber v. Belgium,
 
(No. 9186/80), Judgment of October 26, 1996, para. 25. The European Court also noted that the subjective
 
impartiality of a judge may be determined, according to the specific circumstances of the Case, based on the
 
judge’s conduct of the proceeding, the content, arguments and language used in the decision, or the reasons for
 
carrying out the investigation, which would indicate a lack of professional distance regarding the decision. Cf.
 
ECHR, Case Kyprianou v. Cyprus, (No. 73797/01), G.C., Judgment of December 15, 2005, paras. 130 to 133.
 
71
 
were questioned several times to ascertain Ms. Atala´s sexual orientation and habits (supra
 
paras. 228 and 229). It also notes that the conclusions of the report on the visit, which was
 
submitted to the Court of Appeals, were approved on the same day in their totality by said
 
Court, which immediately proceeded to file disciplinary charges against Ms. Atala, among
 
other things, because of her sexual orientation.
 
237. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Court considers that prejudices and stereotypes
 
were evident in the report, which demonstrated that those who prepared and approved said
 
report were not objective regarding this matter. On the contrary, they expressed their
 
personal position regarding Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation in a disciplinary sphere in which a
 
judicial reprimand for this fact was neither acceptable nor lawful. Consequently, the Court
 
finds that the extraordinary visit and the disciplinary investigation were conducted without
 
the necessary subjective impartiality, and that therefore the State violated Article 8(1) in
 
relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo.
 
238. With regard to Judge Loyola, the Court notes that the file does not contain any
 
evidence that would corroborate the allegation that Mr. Loyola, at a private meeting held in
 
March 2003, had suggested to Ms. Atala that she hand over the custody of her daughters to
 
the father. On the other hand, the Court reiterates that the guarantee of judicial
 
impartiality should be respected by the judicial authorities ex officio. Therefore, any judge
 
whose impartiality could be legitimately and objectively called into question, should
 
disqualify himself from participating in adopting the decision261. Accordingly, Mr. Lillo should
 
not have participated in the decision of November 24, 2003, after having conducted the
 
extraordinary visit in the context of the disciplinary investigation. Nevertheless, the Court
 
finds that immediately after this ruling the Court of Appeals of Temuco endorsed the
 
considerations of the first instance judge and rendered without effect the injunction262.
 
VII
 
REPARATIONS
 
(APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)
 
239. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1)of the American Convention263, the Court has
 
indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails
 
the duty to provide adequate reparation264, and that this provision reflects a customary
 
norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law
 
on State responsibility265.
 
261 Cf. ECHR, Case of Micallef v. Malta, (No. 17056/06), G.C., Judgment of October 15, 2009, para. 98 (“What
 
is at stake is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public. Thus, any judge in
 
respect of whom there is a legitimate reason to fear a lack of impartiality must withdraw”); ECHR, Case Castillo
 
Algar v. Spain, (No. 28194/95 ), Judgment of October 8, 1998, para. 45.
 
262 Judgment of The Court of Appeals of Temuco of March 30, 2004 (File of appendices to the petition, volume
 
V, page 2643).
 
263 Article 63 provides: 1. If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by
 
this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that
 
was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted
 
the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.
 
264 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C
 
No. 7, para. 25; Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 97.
 
265 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No.
 
43, para. 50 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 97.
 
72
 
240. The State argued that this case “has not entailed a violation of the human rights of
 
Ms. Karen Atala’s or those of her three daughters.” However, taking into account the
 
violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will
 
now consider the requests for reparations made by the Commission and the
 
representatives, as well as the State’s observations thereof, in light of the criteria embodied
 
in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make
 
reparations, in order to adopt the measures to required to redress the damage to the
 
victims.
 
241. The reparation of damage caused by a breach of an international obligation requires,
 
wherever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reinstating the
 
situation prior to the violation. Where this is not feasible, as happens in the majority of
 
cases involving human rights violations, the Court shall decide measures to guarantee the
 
infringed rights, repair the damage caused by the violations and establish an amount in
 
compensation to make good on the damage caused266. Therefore, the Court has considered
 
the need to order several measures of reparation in order to fully redress the damage
 
caused, and therefore, in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution,
 
satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition are especially relevant267.
 
242. This Court has held that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the
 
case, the violations declared, the damages verified and the measures requested to repair
 
the consequences of those damages. Therefore, based on the considerations of the merits
 
and the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court must
 
adhere to this concurrence in order to rule properly and according to law268.
 
A. Injured Party
 
243. Under the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court considers the injured
 
party to be that person who has been declared the victim of a violation of some right
 
enshrined in the Convention.269 In the case at hand, the Court found that the State violated
 
the human rights of Karen Atala Riffo and her daughters M., V., and R. (supra paras. 146,
 
155, 178, 208, 222, 230 and 237). In relation to the girl V., for the purposes of
 
reparations, the terms set forth in paragraph 71 of this Judgment shall apply.
 
244. The Court notes that the representatives have requested that the reparations be
 
extended to persons that the Inter-American Commission did not name as alleged victims
 
in this case. Specifically, they requested “the full reparation of pecuniary and non-
 
pecuniary damages” allegedly caused to: i) María del Carmen Riffo Véjar, mother of Karen
 
Atala and grandmother of M., V., and R.; ii) Emma Zelmira María de Ramón Acevedo,
 
266 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. supra nota Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 26 and
 
Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 98. 267 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre supra note 93, para. 294 and Case of Barbani Duarte et al., supra note
 
91, para. 2
 
268 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C
 
No. 183 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 101.
 
269 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of
 
October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 126 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 101.
 
73
 
partner of Karen Atala until 2010; iii) Sergio Ignacio Vera Atala, eldest son of Karen Atala;
 
iv) Judith Riffo Véjar, great aunt of the children M., V., and R; and v) Elías Atala Riffo,
 
brother of Karen Atala.
 
245. However, the Court points out that the Commission did not argue, either in its Merits
 
report or in the application, that these persons are victims of violations of the rights
 
enshrined in the American Convention. Consequently, and having regard to the Court’s
 
case law270, the Court does not consider the family members of the victims in the present
 
case as the “injured party” and accordingly determines that they shall be entitled to
 
reparations solely as beneficiaries, that is, in the event of the victims’ deaths, in accordance
 
with domestic law271.
 
246. International jurisprudence and, in particular, the case law of the Inter-American
 
Court has repeatedly held that a judgment per se constitutes a form of reparation.272
 
Nonetheless, considering the circumstances of the case under examination and the burdens
 
placed upon the victims due to the violations of Articles 24, 11(2), 17(1), 17.4, 19, and
 
8(1) of the American Convention committed against Ms. Atala and the girls M., V. and R.,
 
the Court deems it appropriate to order certain measures of reparation, as explained in the
 
following paragraphs.
 
B. Obligation to investigate and enforce legal consequences for the officials responsible
 
247. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to “investigate and
 
enforce the corresponding legal consequences vis-à-vis for the members of the judiciary
 
who discriminated against and arbitrarily interfered with the private and family life of Karen
 
Atala, and who failed to fulfill their international obligations to guarantee the best interests
 
of [the girls] M., V., and R.”
 
248. The representatives presented no arguments in this regard.
 
249. The State indicated that the Commission’s request “appears to depart from the
 
jurisprudence” of the Inter-American Court, and expressed its “deep concern” over the
 
request for sanctions against members of the judiciary. The State argued that the Court
 
does not have the authority to “to investigate and sanction the individual conduct of [State]
 
agents who may have [committed] [human rights] violations [as it is only competent] to
 
[adjudge] the international liability of States.”
 
250. In this regard, the Court notes that the Commission did not specify certain matters
 
that would enable the Court to consider this request in depth. For example, it did not
 
indicate whether domestic laws make provision for the disciplinary authorities to investigate
 
the commission of discriminatory acts. Moreover, the specificities of this case were not
 
analyzed in relation to other previous cases in which such measures have been ordered.
 
270 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”)
 
v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para.
 
112 and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July
 
5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 131.
 
271 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”)
 
supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 114 and Case of April Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations,
 
and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 90. 272 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C
 
No. 29, para. 56 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 102.
 
74
 
Consequently, the Court considers that the request submitted by the Commission is not
 
valid.
 
C. Other measures of full redress: satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition
 
251. The Court shall determine other measures that seek to redress the non-pecuniary
 
damage, and shall order measures of public scope or repercussion273.
 
1. Rehabilitation: Medical and psychological treatment for the victims
 
252. The Commission requested that rehabilitation measures be ordered in favor of the
 
victims. In this regard, the representatives and the State did not present any comments on
 
that request, while the representatives referred to these measures in the context of their
 
request for compensation for pecuniary damage. (infra para. 287).
 
253. The Court notes that the evidence offered by the psychiatrists shows several
 
indications that Ms. Atala and her daughters suffer as a consequence of the human rights´
 
violations that occurred in this case.
 
254. As in other cases274, the Court deems it necessary to order a measure of reparation
 
that provides adequate care for the physical and mental ailments suffered by the victims,
 
addressing their specific needs. Therefore, having confirmed the violations and damages
 
suffered by the victims in the present case, the Court orders the State to provide them,
 
freely and immediately, with appropriate and effective medical and psychological care for up
 
to four years. In particular, the psychological treatment must be provided by State
 
institutions and personnel specialized in treating victims of acts such as those that occurred
 
in the instant case. When providing said treatment, the specific circumstances and needs of
 
each victim must be take into account, so that they are offered family and individual
 
treatment, as agreed upon with each one, after an individual evaluation275. The treatments
 
must include the provision of medicines and, where appropriate, transportation or other
 
expenses that are directly related and are strictly necessary.
 
255. In particular, and where possible, the treatment must be provided at the health
 
centers nearest to the victims’ places of residence. The victims who request this measure of
 
reparation have a period of six months from notification of this Judgment to advise the
 
State, either in person or through their legal representatives, of their wish to receive
 
medical or psychological care.
 
2. Satisfaction
 
a) Publication of the Judgment
 
273 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment
 
of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84 and Case of Barrios Family, supra note 31, para. 326. 274 Cf. Case Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87,
 
paras. 42 and 45 and Case of Barrios Family, supra note 31, para. 329.
 
275 Cf. Case 19 Comerciantes V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C
 
No. 109, para. 278 and Case of Barrios Family, supra note 31, para. 329.
 
75
 
256. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to publish the relevant
 
parts of the Judgment issued by the Court.
 
257. Similarly, the representatives requested the publication of “an excerpt of the proven
 
facts and the complete operative portion [...] twice, on two successive Sundays, in the
 
newspapers “El Mercurio”, “La Tercera”, “Las Últimas Noticias”, and “La Cuarta.”
 
Furthermore, the representatives asked the Court to require that the State publish the
 
complete text of the Judgment on the Chilean judiciary’s home page “during a period of no
 
less than six months.”
 
258. The State presented no argument against the reparation sought by the Commission
 
and the representatives.
 
259. In this regard, the Court considers that, as it has ordered in other cases276, the State
 
shall publish the following, within six months from the notification of this Judgment:
 
- the official summary of the Judgment written by the Court, once only, in the Official
 
Gazette;
 
- the official summary of the Judgment written by the Court, once only, in a
 
newspaper of broad national circulation, and
 
- the present Judgment in its entirety, to be posted on a government website for a
 
period of one year.
 
b) Public act acknowledging international liability
 
260. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to publicly acknowledge its
 
international responsibility.
 
261. Similarly, the representatives requested a public act of apology to the victims “both
 
verbal and written” to be presided over by the highest State authorities, including “the
 
President of the Republic and the President of the Supreme Court.”
 
262. The State did not comment on the requests from the Commission or the
 
representatives.
 
263. The Court has determined that in certain cases it is justified that the States
 
acknowledge their responsibility through a public act, in order to achieve its full effect277. In
 
this particular case, it is appropriate to adopt a measure of that nature and the State shall
 
make reference to the human rights violations described in this Judgment. The State shall
 
ensure the participation of those victims who wish to be present, and shall invite the
 
organizations that represented the victims in national and international proceedings. The
 
conduct and other details of the public ceremony shall be duly discussed in advance with the
 
276 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., Operative Paragraph 5.d) and Case
 
of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 108.
 
277 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C
 
No. 88, para. 81 and Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of
 
January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 254.
 
76
 
victims’ representatives. The State is granted a period of one year from the notification of
 
this Judgment to comply with this obligation.
 
264. Regarding the State authorities who should be present or participate in this act, the
 
Court, as it has done in other cases, states that these authorities must be of high rank. It
 
will be up to the State to decide to whom this task should be entrusted. However, the
 
Judicial Branch must be represented at the ceremony.
 
3. Guarantees of non-repetition
 
265. The arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives regarding
 
measures to prevent the repetition of these violations include: i) the training of public
 
officials; and ii) adoption of domestic legislation, reforms and the updating of laws against
 
discrimination.
 
266. The State argued that these requests “are not admissible” because “[Chilean]
 
national legislation is not discriminatory.” It considered that “the application of legislative
 
measures of non-repetition [is only justified] when the international Court declares that a
 
general violation of a fundamental right exists on the part of a State, violations which have
 
not been proven in this case, and should not be, in order to get around the subject of the
 
proceeding.” The State argued that “Ms. Atala’s statement was not correct” when she
 
indicated at the public hearing that “the judgment of the Supreme Court has given rise to
 
discriminatory case law against homosexual mothers involved in custody battles.” The State
 
also mentioned and attached a number of judicial decisions issued by courts of first instance
 
and the Supreme Court in order to demonstrate the Chilean national jurisprudence adheres
 
to international law 278.
 
267. The Court emphasizes that some discriminatory acts analyzed in the previous
 
chapters relate to the perpetuation of stereotypes that are associated with the structural
 
and historical discrimination suffered by sexual minorities (supra para. 92), particularly in
 
matters concerning access to justice and the application of domestic law. Therefore, some
 
reparations must have a transformative purpose, in order to produce both a restorative and
 
corrective effect279 and promote structural changes, dismantling certain stereotypes and
 
practices that perpetuate discrimination against LGBT groups. It is on this basis that the
 
Court will analyze the requests of the Commission and the representatives.
 
278 Cr. Judgments of lower courts: Judgment RIT No. C-178-2005 issued by the Family Court of Santa Cruz;
 
Judgment RIT No. C-917-2005 issued by the Family Court of Temuco; Judgment RIT No. C-1075-2008 issued by
 
the Second Family Court of Santiago, and Judgment RIT No. C-1049-2010 issued by the Family Court of Villarrica.
 
Judgments issued by the Supreme court of Justice of Chile: Vásquez Martínez, Case file No. 559-2004 of December
 
13, 2006; Albornoz Agüero, Case file No. 4183-2006 of April 18, 2007; Massis and Sánchez, Case file No. 608-
 
2010 of June 24, 2010; Mesa and De La Rivera, Case file No. 4307-2010 of August 16, 2010; Poblete con Díaz,
 
Case file. 5770-2010 of November 18, 2010; Barrios Duque, Case file. 1369-09 of January 20, 2010; Encina Pérez,
 
Case file No. 5279-2009 of April 14, 2010; “Episodio Chihuío”, Case file No. 8314-09 of January 27, 2011; Farías
 
Urzúa, Case file No. 5219-2010 of July 2011; Iribarren González, Case file No. 9474-2009 of December 21, 2011;
 
Silva Camus, Case file No. 1198-2010 of December 20, 2010; Figueroa Mercado, Case file No. 3302-2009 of May
 
18, 2010; González Galeano, Case file No. 682-2010 of August 19, 2011; Ríos Soto, Case file No. 6823-2009 of
 
August 25, 2011; Brothers Vergara Toledo, Case file No. 789-2009 of August 4, 2010; Prats González, Case file No.
 
2596-2009 of July 8, 2010; Aldoney Vargas, Case file No. 4915-2009 of May 5, 2011; Linares Solís, Case file No.
 
2263-2010 of April 27, 2011; Ortega Fuentes, Case file No. 2080-2008 of April 8, 2010; Robotham and Thauby,
 
Case file No. 5436-2010 of June 22, 2011; Juan Llaupé et al., Case file No. 5698-2009 of January 25, 2011, and
 
Soto Cerna, Case file No. 5285-2010 of June 11, 2011. Judgments issued by the Constitutional Court: Case file No.
 
786-07 of June 13, 2007, and Case file No. 1309-09 of April 20, 2010 (Merits file, volume XII, pages 5882, 5912,
 
5913, 5914, 5956 to 6325, and Merits file, volume XIII, pages 6325 to 7039).
 
279 Cf. Case González et al. ("Cotton Field "), supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 450.
 
77
 
a. Training for public officials
 
268. The Commission emphasized the importance of implementing “training programs for
 
judicial authorities” and “campaigns to foster a climate of tolerance regarding a problem
 
that has been hidden.”
 
269. The representatives urged the Court to order that the State “include mandatory
 
courses on human rights with a special emphasis on topics related to gender and
 
discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression.” The
 
representatives considered that these courses “should be imparted by the Administrative
 
Corporation of the Judiciary at all levels” of the justice system. Furthermore, they
 
requested a budget allocation for the National Human Rights Institute to enable it to
 
implement programs for the prevention of “discrimination, dissemination, and human rights
 
education and research.”
 
270. The State reported that training has been carried out “on diversity and non-
 
discrimination issues, especially for officials of different public institutions throughout the
 
national territory, with the aim of disseminating the different national and international
 
instruments for the protection of diversity.”
 
271. The Court takes notes the advances made by the State in its training programs and
 
activities directed at public officials. Notwithstanding this progress, the Court orders the
 
State to continue implementing continuous educational programs and training courses in: i)
 
human rights, sexual orientation, and non-discrimination; ii) protection of the rights of
 
LGBTI community; and iii) discrimination, overcoming gender stereotypes of LGBTI persons
 
and homophobia. The courses must be directed at public officials at the regional and
 
national levels, and particularly at judicial officials of all areas and levels of the judicial
 
branch.
 
272. In these programs and training courses, special mention must be made of both the
 
present Judgment and the various precedents of the corpus iuris of human rights related to
 
the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation and the obligation of all
 
authorities and officials to guarantee that all persons, without discrimination based on
 
sexual orientation, may enjoy each and every one of the rights established in the
 
Convention. To this end, special attention should be paid to norms or practices in domestic
 
law which, either intentionally or because of their results, may have discriminatory effects
 
on the exercise of rights by persons belonging to sexual minorities.
 
b. Adoption of domestic measures, reforms, and adaptation of laws against
 
discrimination
 
273. The Commission requested the Court to order the State of Chile to “adopt [...]
 
legislation, public policies, programs and initiatives to prohibit and eradicate discrimination
 
based on sexual orientation in all areas of the exercise of public power, including the
 
administration of justice.”
 
274. The representatives requested that the Court order measures aimed at reforming
 
existing legislation in Chile. Specifically, they requested that a “Message of Utmost
 
Urgency” be sent regarding the draft law establishing anti-discriminatory measures (Bulletin
 
3815-07) in order to ensure that said draft legislation expressly prohibits discrimination
 
based on sexual orientation and “provides legal remedies to lodge a claim” for a violation. In
 
78
 
addition, the representatives called for the repeal and amendment of all regulations that
 
“pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention would [enter into] conflict with the right to equality
 
between people, perpetuating and validating discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
 
275. The State indicated that the Supreme Court’s decision does not assume “the
 
presence of a constant and protected practice in the law (or in the insufficient regulation
 
thereof) that might allow [...] domestic courts [...] to interpret custody laws in a
 
discriminatory manner with regard to the parents’ sexual orientation.” The State added that
 
“Chilean legislation concerning the determination of custodial rights does not establish direct
 
or indirect [...] discrimination due to the sexual preference of the parents.”
 
276. Furthermore, the State pointed out that the right to equality is fully guaranteed in
 
the Chilean constitution, namely in “Articles 1, 5, 19(2), 19(3), 19(17), 19(20) and 19(22)
 
of the Fundamental Charter” and “a [...] measure to ensure effective protection in Article
 
20.” The State also specified that the National Congress is currently debating a draft law on
 
non-discrimination (Bulletin 3815-07) which “expressly” establishes certain prohibited
 
categories and “another judicial measure to guarantee their adequate protection and
 
respect.” Similarly, in relation to legislative initiatives, the State noted that the Chilean
 
government has submitted “the draft law agreement on cohabitation (Bulletin 7873-07)”
 
which seeks to “improve the legal status and equality of persons of different sexual
 
orientations.” As documentary proof, the State referred to a report prepared by Mr. Claudio
 
Nash in which he states that Chilean law on the determination of custody does not establish
 
direct or indirect discrimination due to the sexual orientation of the parents, and procedural
 
law does not indicate that the sexual orientation of one’s parents “renders them incapable of
 
carrying out their role.”
 
277. Similarly, the State indicated that there are currently “innumerable public policies,
 
programs and state initiatives aimed at eradicating discrimination in all its forms, including
 
those based on sexual orientation.” The State noted that the Directorate of Social
 
Organizations for the General Ministry of Government prepared the Program on Sexual
 
Diversity 2011, aimed at “promoting a policy of respect for all persons [...] ensuring that
 
arbitrary discrimination against minorities does not occur.”
 
278. The State declared that, with regard to its public policies to combat discrimination,
 
the Division of Social Organizations (“DOS”), attached to the General Ministry of
 
Government, has been implementing a program known as “Tolerance, Not Discrimination”
 
since the year 2000. The State explained that in 2006, this program was converted into the
 
Department of Diversity and Non-Discrimination in order to promote the social integration of
 
persons and groups who are vulnerable to discrimination, including sexual orientation, as
 
one of the classified discriminatory criteria. This department, acting through the Diversity
 
and Non-Discrimination Units, has implemented a number of programs, projects and
 
activities designed to promote non-discrimination against sexual minorities”280.
 
280 The State mentioned the following programs: the edition of the “Diagnostics of Public Services on Diversity
 
and Non-Discrimination,” which corresponds to a survey on public programmatic services in 12 regions throughout
 
the country in 2007; the organization of a meeting between Social Action Gay, Trans Alliance, the Aphrodite
 
Syndicate of Valparaíso, and the Regional Ministerial Secretariat of Government in the framework of the
 
aforementioned diagnostics; training in diversity and non-discrimination for national officials; support for public
 
events organized by the LGBT movement, such as the Gay Parade; the Second National Meeting of Trans-Feminine
 
Organizations “Difficulties, Advances, and Challenges in the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights,” organized
 
by the “Amanda Jofré” syndicate and the Tavesnavia Transvestite Association in 2006; the First Day of Training
 
“Strategic Planning of the Diversity Network in Biobió,” organized the Network of Sexual Diversity Organizations,
 
among others, in 2007; the First National Meeting “Gender, Family, and Sexual Diversity,” organized by
 
ACCIONGAY in 2009; the design of the Sexual Diversity Program for 2011, from which the following actions have
 
been implemented: the seminar “Sexual Diversity and Discrimination in Chile” held on January 27, 2011, and 12
 
79
 
Considerations of the Court
 
279. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires States Parties to adopt, in
 
accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of the Convention, the
 
legislative or other measures necessary to render effective the rights and freedoms
 
protected by the Convention281. In other words, the States not only have the positive
 
obligation to adopt the legislative measures necessary to guarantee the exercise of the
 
rights enshrined therein, but they must also avoid promulgating laws that may impede the
 
free exercise of these rights, as well as preventing the amendment or suppression of any
 
laws which protect those rights282.
 
280. In the case at hand, the Court limited itself to examining the relationship between
 
the legal application of certain laws with possible discriminatory practices. The Court did
 
not analyze the compatibility of a particular law with the American Convention, nor was this
 
matter pertinent to the case. Also, the representatives did not provide sufficient facts that
 
would suggest that the violations resulted from a problem with the laws per se. Therefore,
 
the Court considers that it is not appropriate, in the circumstances of the present case, to
 
order the adoption, modification or adjustment of specific domestic laws.
 
281. Furthermore, as previously established in its case law, this Court recalls that it is
 
cognizant that the State authorities are subject to the rule of law and, therefore, are
 
required to apply the provisions in force in their legal system.283 But when a State is Party
 
to an international agreement such as the American Convention, all its organs, including its
 
judges and all other entities linked to the administration of justice, are also subject to it.
 
This obliges them to remain vigilant and to ensure that the effects of the Convention’s
 
provisions are not impaired by the application of other laws contrary to its purpose and aim.
 
282. The judges and entities engaged in the administration of justice at all levels are
 
required to undertake “Convention control” ex officio between domestic law and the
 
American Convention in the context of their respective competencies and the corresponding
 
procedural regulations. In this task, the judges and other organs of the justice system must
 
take into account not only the Convention, but also the interpretation thereof by the Inter-
 
American Court, in its role as the final authority on the interpretation of the American
 
Convention284.
 
283. Thus, for example, the region’s highest Courts, such as the Constitutional Chamber
 
of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica,285 the Constitutional Court of Bolivia,286 the Supreme
 
 
meetings of the “Roundtable on Sexual Diversity” created by the Division of Social Organizations with the goal of
 
bringing together representatives of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, and inter-sexual
 
communities (GLBTTI), colleges, foundations, corporations, and international institutions. Cf. Brief of final
 
arguments presented by the State (Merits file, volume XII, pages 5833-5837). 281 Cf. Case Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C
 
No. 12, para. 50 and Case Chocrón, supra note 26, para. 1
 
282 Cf. Case Gangaram Panday, supra note 281, para. 50 and Case Chocrón, supra note 26, para. 1
 
283 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs.
 
Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note
 
28, para. 93.
 
284 Cf. Case Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 124 and Case
 
Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 93.
 
285 Cf. Judgment of May 9, 1995 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica.
 
Held unconstitutional. Vote 2313-95 (File 0421-S-90), considering clause VII.
 
80
 
Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic,287 the Constitutional Court of Peru,288 the
 
Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina,289 the Constitutional Court of Colombia290, the
 
Supreme Court of Mexico291 and the Supreme Court of Panama292 have cited and applied
 
such a control, taking into account the interpretations offered by the Inter-American Court.
 
284. In conclusion, based on the treaty control mechanism, legal and administrative
 
interpretations and proper judicial guarantees should be applied in accordance with the
 
principles established in the jurisprudence of this Court in the present case 293. This is of
 
particular importance in relation to sexual orientation as one of the prohibited categories of
 
discrimination pursuant to Article 1(1)of the American Convention (supra paragraph C.2).
 
D) Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages
 
285. The Court has developed case law on the concepts of pecuniary294 and non-
 
pecuniary295 damages and the scenarios in which it is proper to pay them.
 
1. Pecuniary damage
 
286. The Commission asked the Court to “set a fair amount of compensation that
 
corresponds to the pecuniary damage [...] caused.”
 
287. The representatives requested payment for “consequential damages that [Ms. Atala]
 
has had or will have to defray in the future, as well as the loss of legitimate earnings or
 
profits that she has incurred or will incur.” Such compensation would contemplate:
 
286 Cf. Judgment issued on May 10, 2010 by the Constitutional Court of Bolivia (File No. 2006-13381-27-
 
RAC), para. III.3 on “The Inter-American System of Human Rights. Basis and effects of the Judgments issued by
 
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.”
 
287 Cf. Order No. 1920-2003 issued on November 13, 2003 by the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic. 288 Judgment issued on July 21, 2006 by the Constitutional Court of Peru (File No. 2730-2006-PA/TC),
 
consideration 12 and judgment 00007-2007-PI/TC issued on June 19, 2007 by the plenary of the Constitutional
 
Court of Peru (Callao College of Lawyers, Congress of the Republic), consideration 26.
 
289 Cf. Judgment issued on December 23, 2004 by the Supreme Court of Argentina (File No. 224. XXXIX),
 
“Espósito, Miguel Angel s/ Incidental Proceeding of Limitation on the Criminal Action commenced by the Defense,”
 
considering clause 6 and Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the Supreme Court of
 
Argentina, Mazzeo, July Lilo, et al., cassation recourse and unconstitutionality. M. 2333. XLII. Et al. of July 13,
 
2007, para. 20.
 
290 Cf. Judgment C-010/00 issued on March 19, 2000 by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, para. 6.
 
291 Cf. Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Record 912/2010, Decision of July 14 2011.
 
292 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Panama, Decision No. 240 of May 12, 2010 in compliance with the
 
Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of January 27, 2009, in the case of Santander Tristan
 
Donoso v. Panama.
 
293 Cf. Case López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011.
 
Series C No. 233, para. 228.
 
294 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002.
 
Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 114 295 The Court has held that non-pecuniary harm “may encompass both the suffering and injuries caused to
 
the direct victim and close relatives or friends, the impairment of very significant values [...], as well as non-
 
pecuniary alterations in the conditions of existence of the victim of her family.” Case of the “Street Children”,
 
supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 84 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para.
 
120.
 
81
 
(i) expenses related to “psychiatric and therapeutic care [...] and the costs of
 
prescriptions for numerous medicines, which the petitioner has incurred and which in
 
future will generate costs estimated at” $62,205 USD (sixty-two thousand, two
 
hundred and five dollars of the United States of America);
 
ii) transportation expenses, bearing in mind that Ms. Atala’s three daughters live
 
in Temuco and that “the projection made regarding future expenses, is calculated
 
until the time the youngest girl comes of age”, which would amount to $38,752 USD
 
(thirty-eight thousand, seven hundred and fifty-two dollars of the United States of
 
America); and
 
iii) with respect to loss of future earnings, the representatives argued that Ms.
 
Atala could not adequately dispose of her property, located in the town of Villarrica,
 
due to the time she spent making regular visits. The representatives argued that the
 
victim was unable to rent her property or obtain any income from it, and considered
 
that the calculation of damages should be performed equitably. They proposed the
 
sum of $96,600 USD (ninety-six thousand, six hundred dollars of the United States
 
of America), basing the claim on the amount of the last payment Ms. Atala made on
 
her home and a document from the Central Bank of Chile stating the daily values of
 
the UF (Chilean readjustment unit), and considering that the payment is in most
 
cases equal to the income from the rental. The representatives also argued that “this
 
legitimate income [...] would have been produced had it not been for the arbitrary
 
decision of the Supreme Court which decided on the separation of her daughters.”
 
288. The State considered that, since no discriminatory act occurred, “the requested
 
indemnities are not appropriate.” The State also argued, based on Silva Mouta v. Portugal,
 
that “the European Court did not grant any compensation [since…] having declared the
 
existence of a violation [...] this constitute[d] in itself a just [reparation] for the damages
 
allege[d].” Finally, the State noted that its officials attempted to reach an amicable
 
agreement “which did not materialize because of the large [...] amounts requested by the
 
alleged victim [that] did not correspond to the scale of the alleged damage.”
 
289. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary compensation and
 
has held that this contemplates “the loss or decrease of the victims’ income, the expenses
 
incurred […] and the pecuniary consequences that are connected with the facts of the case” 296.
 
290. Concerning the alleged loss of income caused to Ms. Atala due to her being unable to
 
rent out her home in Villarrica or obtain some other economic gain from it, given the need
 
to use it while visiting her daughters, the representatives based their claims on a chart from
 
June 2004 to December 2010, and from January 2011 to October 2017, when Ms. Atala’s
 
youngest daughter would no longer be a minor. The representatives estimated the lost
 
profits at $47,400 USD (equivalent to $23,700,000 Chilean pesos) for the first period and
 
$49,000 USD (equivalent to $24,600,000 Chilean pesos) for the second, for a total of US
 
$96,600. They indicated that the Court should use this chart as a guide for the fair
 
estimation of lost earnings.
 
296 Cf. Case Bámaca Velásquez, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 43 and Case Fontevecchia
 
and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 114.
 
82
 
291. The principle of equity has been used in the jurisprudence of this Court to quantify
 
non-pecuniary damages297, pecuniary damages298 and lost earnings299. However, the use of
 
this criterion does not mean that the Court may act discretionally in setting the amounts of
 
compensation.300 It is up to the parties to clearly specify the proof of harm suffered as well
 
as the specific connection between the pecuniary claim, the facts of the case and the
 
violations alleged. In the present matter, the representatives only attached a copy of Ms.
 
Atala’s last payment for the aforementioned house along with a list of the daily values of the
 
UF from the Central Bank.301 The Court finds that this does not constitute a sufficiently
 
detailed and clear argument for determining the relationship between the UFs, the payment
 
of the mortgage note, the chart demonstrating lost earnings and the amount of lost future
 
income which, based on this information, the Court was asked to order in equity.
 
292. Furthermore, given that there must exist a causal nexus between the facts
 
analyzed by the Court, the violations declared previously and the alleged loss of future
 
income (supra paras. 287 and 291), the Court reiterates that it is not its task to assess the
 
evidence contained in the custody file in the present case as regards which of the parents of
 
the three daughters offered a better home for them. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the
 
Court to rule on the representatives’ argument that the loss of earnings related to the house
 
in Villarrica would not have occurred without the arbitrary judgment of the Supreme Court
 
of Justice.
 
293. A similar conclusion is reached in analyzing Ms. Atala’s transportation expenses for
 
her visits to her daughters. Indeed, if the Court has not made a determination as to which
 
of the parents had a right to custody, then it cannot assess the economic impact of the
 
visiting schedule established in the domestic custody orders.
 
294. Finally, in relation to the costs related to medical treatment and the purchase of
 
medicines, the Court notes that there is proof in the record regarding these expenses and
 
their relationship to the effects that Ms. Atala’s loss of the custody of her daughters had on
 
her302. The Court finds that this provides sufficient evidence to conclude that the violations
 
declared in this Judgment could have had negative effects on Ms. Atala’s emotional and
 
psychological well-being. However, the amount requested for medicine expenses incurred
 
until 2010 ($14,378 USD) is not clearly shown in the attached certificates. On the other
 
297 Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 27 and Case Family
 
Barrios, supra note 31, para. 378. 298 Cf. Case Neira Alegría et al. supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 50 and Case Family
 
Barrios, supra note 31, para. 373.
 
299 Cf. Case Neira Alegría et al. supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., para. 50 and Case Family
 
Barrios, supra note 31, para. 373.
 
300 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993.
 
Series C No. 15, para. 87.
 
301 Cf. Copy of the value of Development Unit- statistical database (File of appendices to the Brief on Motions,
 
Arguments, and Evidence, Volume VI, page 2925).
 
302 Cf. The medical certificates for psychiatric and therapeutic attention and prescription drugs attached to the
 
brief on motions, arguments, and evidence; and the projection of future medical and pharmaceutical expenses
 
performed by the expert, Dr. Claudia Figueroa Morales. According to this psychiatrist’s certificate, Ms. Atala was
 
assisted on 314 occasions from June 2003 until December 2010, for a total value of $12,560,000 Chilean pesos,
 
equivalent to approximately $25,120 USD (twenty-five thousand, one hundred and twenty US dollars). Cf.
 
Attachments to the ESAP, Volume VI, p. 2762. According to the certificates from Dr. Figueroa Morales, Ms. Atala
 
incurred the following expenses in medical appointments and medicines: a) From June 2003 to June 2006,
 
$5,775,000 Chilean pesos (Attachments to the ESAP, TVI F2764), and from June 2006 until May 2008, $268,000
 
Chilean pesos (Attachments to the ESAP, Volume VI, p. 2763). Dr. Figueroa Morales indicated that Karen Atala “will
 
require permanent psychiatric care until her children are independent, meaning about seven more years
 
considering the age of the youngest daughter.” Cf. File of appendices to the application, Volume II, p. 797.
 
83
 
hand, the Court notes that Ms. Atala received medical attention for health issues even
 
before the custody process had commenced. Thus, the Court cannot precisely determine
 
which components of her medical treatment were exclusively related to the damage
 
suffered because of the violations declared in this case. Regarding the payment of future
 
expenses for medical treatment from 2012 to 2017, the Court finds that said expenses shall
 
be covered through the implementation of the rehabilitation measure for medical and
 
psychological care already ordered (supra paras. 254 and 255). Therefore, based on the
 
criterion of equity, the Court sets the sum of US$ 10,000 to cover the costs already incurred
 
for medical and psychological care.
 
2. Non-pecuniary damages
 
295. The Commission requested that the Court establish in equity the amount of
 
compensation corresponding to the non-pecuniary damage caused.
 
296. The representatives requested that the Court order the State to pay “pecuniary
 
compensation” to repair the “suffering and afflictions caused by the violation of [Ms.
 
Atala´s] fundamental rights,” the “obvious detriment to her life plan,” and the “mother and
 
daughters’ painful separation and mutual loss.” The representatives’ requested the sum of
 
$100,000 USD (one hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America) in
 
compensation for non-pecuniary damages, for each of the victims.
 
297. The State reiterated the arguments put forward regarding pecuniary damages
 
(supra para. 288).
 
298. The Court notes that in the public hearing Ms. Atala indicated that, during the
 
disciplinary investigation conducted against her (supra para. 227), she felt “profoundly
 
humiliated, exposed, as if [she] had been stripped naked and thrown into the public
 
square.” She also stated that the decision of the Supreme Court of Chile which ruled on the
 
recurso de queja (remedy of complaint) had a direct impact on her identity as a mother
 
when it “deprived her of her daughters” for being a lesbian, causing her “humiliation [...] as
 
a woman,” and stigmatizing her as “incapable” of being a mother and “raising her own
 
children.” Furthermore, the victim declared that because of these events, her reputation,
 
professional activities and her social and family relations were all affected. Finally, the
 
experts who conducted a psychological evaluation of Ms. Atala and her daughters diagnosed
 
various damages related to the discriminatory acts, as well as impairment of her private and
 
family life as mentioned in this Judgment.
 
299. In this regard, the Court finds that the declared violations gave rise to different
 
kinds of damage in the victims’ daily lives, different levels of stigma and distress. In view of
 
the compensation ordered by the Court in other cases, and in consideration of the
 
circumstances of the present case, the suffering caused to the victims, as well as the
 
change in their living conditions and other intangible consequences, the Court deems it
 
appropriate to establish, in equity, the sum of $20,000 USD (twenty thousand dollars of the
 
United States of America) for Ms. Atala and $10,000 USD (ten thousand dollars of the
 
United States of America) for each of the girls M., V., and R. as compensation for non-
 
pecuniary damages.
 
E) Costs and expenses
 
84
 
300. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included
 
in the amount provided for reparations under Article 63(1) of the American Convention303.
 
301. The Commission requested that the Court “order the State of Chile [to] pay the costs
 
and expenses that ar[ose] from filing the [...] case, both in the domestic courts and in the
 
Inter-American Human Rights System.”
 
302. The representatives requested that the victims be granted an additional allowance
 
for attorney fees, both at the national and international levels. The amount requested in
 
their brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence amounted to $80,200 USD (eighty
 
thousand, two hundred dollars of the United States of America). In the final written
 
arguments a number of charges were included for which the representatives requested, in
 
total, a sum larger than that amount304.
 
303. For its part, the State did not present any comments on the representatives’ claims
 
for costs and expenses.
 
304. The Court has indicated that the claims of victims or their representatives for costs
 
and expenses, and the evidence supporting these, must be submitted to the Court at the
 
first procedural opportunity, that is, in the brief of motions and pleadings, without prejudice
 
to the fact that such claims may later be updated, according to new costs and expenses that
 
may be incurred during the proceedings305. As to the reimbursement of costs and
 
expenses, the Court must prudently assess their scope, which includes expenses incurred
 
before domestic authorities as well as those that stemming from the proceedings before the
 
Inter-American system, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the
 
nature of international human rights jurisdiction. This assessment may be based on the
 
principle of equity and taking into account the expenses stated by the parties, providing that
 
their quantum is reasonable306.
 
303 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998.
 
Series C. No. 39, para. 79 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 124.
 
304 The representatives set the fee per hour of work at US$200 (two hundred dollars of the United States of
 
America). Furthermore, in the brief of final arguments they specified the following amounts for costs and expenses
 
counted in hours of work: i) “[c]osts of filing the Recurso de Queja (Remedy of Complaint) in Chile: US$20,000”
 
(twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America); ii) ”[c]osts of filing the petition before the Inter-
 
American Commission on Human Rights” ("50 hours for preparing the complaint "; "50 hours for preparing the
 
hearing before the ICDH", and "1 hour of work during the hearing before the ICHR ": US $20,200 (twenty thousand
 
dollars of the United States of America); iii) “[c]osts incurred during the proceeding to reach an amicable
 
agreement” ("50 hours of preparation for 5 meetings [...] with State representatives "; "66 hours of travel between
 
Santiago and Washington -3 round trips of 11 hours each way ", and "150 hours of preparation of 10 briefs (15
 
hours for each brief) filed before the ICHR ": US$53,200 (fifty three thousand, two hundred dollars of the United
 
States of America); iv) “[c]osts incurred in preparing the petition filed before the Inter-American Court of Human
 
Rights” ("80 hours of preparation of the petition and "457 hours of work up until the time of filing the brief of final
 
arguments: US$91,400 (ninety-one thousand four hundred dollars of the United States of America), and v) “[c]osts
 
incurred in the preparation of the hearing and final arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”
 
("120 hours of preparation for the hearing"; "100 hours of preparation" of the brief of final arguments," and "travel
 
to Bogotá by 6 lawyers for the hearing, at a cost of US$2,000 per person": US$56.000 (fifty-six thousand dollars of
 
the United States of America). With regard to the proceeding ordered by the Court and held in Santiago de Chile
 
(supra para. 13), on February 6, 2012 the representatives reported that Ms. Atala “has had to defray the costs of
 
transport Ms. Alicia Espinoza and her young daughters, who were not in Santiago for the purpose of ensuring their
 
appearance at [said] proceeding,” for which reason they requested that the Court “take into consideration the costs
 
incurred by Ms. Atala when determining the costs of this process” (Merits file, volume XII, pages 7513 and 7514).
 
However, no receipts of expenses were attached in relation to this last request.
 
305 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 160, para. 275 and Case of Fontevecchia and
 
D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 127.
 
306 Cf. Case Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 303, para. 82 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra
 
note 28, para. 127.
 
85
 
305. In the case at hand, the Court notes that the case file contains no evidence to
 
support the costs and expenses requested by the representatives. Indeed, the amount
 
requested for fees was not accompanied by any specific evidentiary argument relating to its
 
reasonableness or its scope. Nonetheless, the Court finds that it is possible to assume that
 
during both domestic as well as Inter-American proceedings the victim had financial
 
expenditures.
 
306. Taking into account the arguments presented by the parties, as well as the absence
 
of probative material, the Court finds in equity that the State must pay $12,000 USD
 
(twelve thousand dollars of the United States of America) to the victim for costs and
 
expenses. This amount shall be paid within the term of one year as of the notice of this
 
Judgment. Ms. Atala Riffo shall, in turn, pay the sum she considers appropriate to the
 
persons who acted as her representatives in the proceedings before the domestic and Inter-
 
American courts. Likewise, the Court specifies that in the process of monitoring compliance
 
with this Judgment, it may order the State to reimburse the victim or her representatives
 
for reasonable expenses that they may incur at that procedural stage.
 
F) Method of compliance with the payments ordered
 
307. The State shall make the payment of the compensation for pecuniary and non-
 
pecuniary damages directly to the victims or to their legal representatives, as well as the
 
reimbursement of costs and expenses, within the term of one year as of the notice of this
 
Judgment, pursuant to the terms of the following paragraphs.
 
308. Should the beneficiary die before payment of the respective compensation is made to
 
her, such amounts shall inure to the benefit of her heirs, pursuant to the provisions of the
 
applicable domestic legislation.
 
309. The State shall discharge its pecuniary obligations by tendering United States dollars
 
or an equivalent amount in Chilean currency, using for the corresponding estimate the
 
exchange rate between both currencies in force in New York, United States of America on
 
the day prior to the day payment is made.
 
310. If, for reasons attributable to the beneficiary of the compensations or her successors,
 
it is not possible for them to receive the amounts ordered within the indicated period, the
 
State shall deposit those amounts in an account held in the beneficiary’s name or in a
 
certificate of deposit from a reputable Chilean financial institution, in United States dollars
 
and under the most favorable financial terms allowed by law and banking practices. If, after
 
10 years, the compensation has not been claimed, these amounts shall be returned to the
 
State with the accrued interest.
 
311. The amounts allocated in this Judgment as compensation and reimbursement of
 
costs and expenses shall be delivered to the persons indicated in their entirety, pursuant to
 
the provisions of this Judgment, without deductions derived from future taxes.
 
312. If the State should fall into arrears with its payments, it shall pay interest on the
 
amount owed corresponding to banking interest rates on arrears in Chile.
 
313. As to the compensation ordered in favor of the girls M., V. and R., the State shall
 
deposit the amounts in a solvent Chilean financial institution in United States dollars. The
 
investments shall be made within the term of one year, under the most favorable financial
 
86
 
terms allowed by law and banking practice, while the beneficiaries are minors. Said
 
amounts may be withdrawn when the girls come of age, or before if this is in the girls’ best
 
interest, as the case may be, as established by a competent judicial authority. If, after 10
 
years counted from the time each of the girls comes of age, the corresponding indemnities
 
have not been claimed, these amount shall be returned to the State with the accrued
 
interest. As regards the girl V., for the purposes of reparations, the terms set forth in
 
paragraph 71 of this Judgment shall apply.
 
VIII
 
OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS
 
314. Therefore,
 
THE COURT
 
DECIDES,
 
Unanimously that:
 
1. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to equality and non-
 
discrimination enshrined in Article 24, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American
 
Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo, under the terms of
 
paragraphs 94 to 99, 107 to 146 and 218 to 222 of this Judgment.
 
Unanimously that:
 
2. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to equality and non-
 
discrimination enshrined in Article 24, in conjunction with Articles 19 and 1(1) of the
 
American Convention, to the detriment of the girls M., V. and R., under the terms of
 
paragraphs 150 to 155 of this Judgment.
 
Unanimously that:
 
3. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to privacy enshrined in Article
 
11(2), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of
 
Karen Atala Riffo, under the terms of paragraphs 161 to 167 and 225 to 230 of this
 
Judgment.
 
Judge Diego García-Sayán and Judges Margarette May Macaulay and Rhadys Abreu Blondet
 
voted in favor of the following operative paragraph. Judges Manuel E. Ventura Robles,
 
Leonardo A. Franco and Alberto Pérez Pérez voted against. Therefore, pursuant to Articles
 
23.3 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and 16.4 of the Rules of
 
Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, it is decided that:
 
4. The State is responsible for the violation of Articles 11(2)and 17(1),in conjunction
 
with Article 1(1)of the American Convention to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo and of the
 
girls M., V. and R., under the terms of paragraphs 168 to 178 of this Judgment.
 
87
 
Unanimously that:
 
5. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to be heard enshrined in Article
 
8.1, in conjunction with Articles 19 and 1(1)of the American Convention to the detriment of
 
the girls M., V. and R., under the terms of paragraphs 196 to 208 of this Judgment.
 
Unanimously that:
 
6. The State violated the guarantee of impartiality enshrined in Article 8(1), in
 
conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, with respect to disciplinary
 
investigation, to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo, under the terms of paragraphs 234 to
 
237 of this Judgment.
 
By five votes in favor and one against the Court finds that:
 
7. The State did not violate the judicial guarantee of impartiality enshrined in Article
 
8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the decisions of the Supreme Court of
 
Justice and the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, under the terms of paragraphs 187 to 192 of this
 
Judgment.
 
Dissenting Judge Margarette May Macaulay.
 
AND ORDERS
 
Unanimously that:
 
1. This Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.
 
2. The State shall provide medical and psychological or psychiatric care, free of charge
 
and in an immediate, appropriate and effective manner, through its specialized public health
 
institutions to those victims who so request it, under the terms of paragraphs 254 and 255
 
of this Judgment.
 
3. The State shall issue the publications indicated in paragraph 259 of this Judgment,
 
within a period of six months as of notification of this Judgment.
 
4. The State shall hold a public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility
 
with regard to the facts of this case, under the terms of paragraphs 263 of 264 of this
 
Judgment.
 
5. The State shall, within a reasonable period of time, continue to implement
 
permanent education programs and training courses directed at public officials at the
 
regional and national levels, and particularly judicial officials in all areas and at all levels of
 
the Judicial Branch, under the terms of paragraphs 271 and 272 of this Judgment.
 
88
 
6. The State shall pay the amounts stipulated in paragraphs 294 and 299 of this
 
Judgment, as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and reimbursement
 
of costs and expenses, as corresponds, under the terms and conditions stated in paragraph
 
306 of this Judgment.
 
7. The State shall, within the term of one year as of notification of this Judgment,
 
submit a report to this Court concerning the measures adopted in compliance with this
 
Judgment.
 
8. The Court shall monitor full compliance with this Judgment, by virtue of its authority
 
and in compliance with its duties according to the American Convention on Human Rights,
 
and shall consider this case concluded once the State has fully complied with the measures
 
ordered in this Judgment.
 
Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez informed the Court his Partially Dissenting Opinion, which is
 
attached to this Judgment.
 
Done in Spanish and English, the Spanish text being authentic, in San Jose, Costa Rica, on
 
February 24, 2012.
 
Diego García-Sayán
 
President
 
Manuel E. Ventura Robles Leonardo A. Franco
 
 
Margarette May Macaulay Rhadys Abreu Blondet
 
PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ALBERTO PÉREZ PÉREZ
 
IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
 
CASE OF ATALA RIFFO AND DAUGHTERS v. CHILE
 
FEBRUARY 24, 2012
 
1. I have voted against operative paragraph 4, according to which “the State is
 
responsible for violating Articles 11(2)and 17.1” of the American Convention, in
 
consideration that it should only have mentioned a violation of Article 11(2), because given
 
the facts of the present case: I) it is sufficient to declare a violation of Article 11(2), and II)
 
it is not necessary or prudent to declare a violation of Article 17 which could be taken as an
 
implicit pronouncement on the interpretation of various provisions of said Article.
 
I. IT IS SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE ARTICLE 11(2)
 
2. The American Convention on Human Rights enshrines rights related to the family in
 
Article 11(2)and Article 17, and similarly contains important references to the family in
 
Articles 19, 27.2 and 32.1:
 
Article 11. Protection of Honor and Dignity
 
1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized.
 
2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home or
 
his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.
 
Everyone has right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
 
Article 17. Protection of the Family
 
1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society
 
and the State.
 
2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to raise a family shall be recognized, if
 
they meet the conditions required by domestic laws, insofar as such conditions do not affect the principle of
 
non-discrimination established in this Convention.
 
3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
 
4. The States Parties shall take appropriate steps to ensure the equality of rights and the adequate
 
balancing of responsibilities of the spouses as to marriage, during marriage, and in the event of its
 
dissolution. In case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children solely
 
on the basis of their own best interests.
 
5. The law shall recognize equal rights for children born out of wedlock and those born in wedlock.
 
Article 19. Rights of the Child
 
Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the
 
part of his family, society and the State.
 
Article 27. Suspension of Guarantees
 
1. in time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State
 
Party, it may take measures derogating from its obligations under the present Convention to the extent and
 
for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are
 
not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination on the
 
grounds of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin.
 
2. The foregoing provision does not authorize the suspension of the following Articles: 3 (Right to Juridical
 
Personality); Article 4 (Right to Life); Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment); 6 (Freedom from Slavery); 9
 
(Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws); 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion); 17 (Rights of the Family); 18
 
(Right to a Name); Article 19 (Rights of the Child); Article 20 (Right to Nationality), and Article 23 (Right to
 
Participate in Government), or of the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of such rights.
 
3. (…).
 
2
 
Article 32. Relationship between Duties and Rights
 
1. Every person has responsibilities to his family, his community and mankind.
 
2. The rights of each person are limited by the rights of others, by the security of all, and by the just
 
demands of the general welfare, in a democratic society.
 
3. The European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental
 
freedoms contains two provisions that are relevant in this respect, corresponding to Articles
 
11 and 17(2)of the American Convention:
 
Article 8 — Right to respect for private and family life
 
1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
 
2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
 
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public
 
safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
 
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 
Article 12 — Right to marry
 
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the
 
national laws governing the exercise of this right.
 
4. Therefore, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which the
 
judgment cites appropriately and with persuasive value, refers to the provisions of the
 
European Convention that correspond to Articles 11(2) and 17(2) of the American
 
Convention1
 
, since there are no provisions referring to the matters contemplated in
 
paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 17.
 
5. It is of particular importance to examine judgments in which the ECHR considered
 
cases involving cohabiting couples of the same sex or gender2 in light of Article 8 of the
 
European Convention, and in relation to Article 14. As the judgment of this Court clearly
 
states in paragraph 174:
 
1 In cases similar to this one, the rule that prohibits discrimination is also invoked, which states the
 
following: Article 14 — Prohibition of discrimination - the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the
 
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground, such as sex, race, color, language, religion,
 
political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other
 
status.
 
2 Perhaps it would have been appropriate to also cite the judgment in the case P. V. v. Spain (application N°
 
35159/09), delivered on November 30, 2010 and made final on April 11, 2011. In this case, the applicant is a
 
male-to-female transsexual who had previously been married to P.Q.F., with whom she had a son in 1998. When
 
the couple was legally separated, the judge approved an agreement concluded between the spouses whereby the
 
custody of the child was awarded to the mother and parental responsibility to both parents jointly. In addition, the
 
agreement established contact arrangements for the father to spend time with the child. Two years later, the
 
mother applied to have her ex-spouse deprived of parental responsibility and to have the contact arrangements
 
and any communication between father and son suspended. She argued that the father had shown a lack of
 
interest in the child, and was undergoing hormonal treatment with a view to gender reassignment and usually wore
 
make-up and dressed as a woman. The domestic court dismissed the mother’s application in respect of the first
 
point and, as regards the contact arrangements, the judge decided to restrict the visits, which were later gradually
 
extended. The court’s decision, in relation to the facts, was based on a psychological report, according to which P.
 
was experiencing “emotional instability” that “entailed a real and significant risk of disturbing the emotional well-
 
being and development of the child’s personality, in view of his age (he was six years old at the time of the expert
 
report) and the stage of development at the time; and, as regards the law, on the best interests of the child. It was
 
not based on the father’s status as a transsexual. The ECHR considered that the Spanish courts, unlike the ruling in
 
the case of Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, had not based their decision on the applicant’s sexual orientation,
 
but had taken into account her “emotional instability” and had given priority to “the interests of the child,” adopting
 
more restrictive contact arrangements to enable the child to become gradually accustomed to his father’s gender
 
change, and had subsequently extended these arrangements despite the fact that “the applicant’s sexual status
 
remained the same.”
 
3
 
“..in the case Schalk and Kopf V. Austria, the European Court revised its case law in force at that time,
 
which only accepted that the emotional and sexual relationship of a same-sex couple constitutes “private
 
life,” but had not considered what constituted “family life,” despite the applicants having lived together in
 
a long-term relationship. Applying a broader concept of family, the European Court established that “a
 
cohabiting same-sex couple living in a stable de facto partnerships, falls within the notion of ‘family life’,
 
just as the relationship of a different-sex couple in the same situation would,” considering it “artificial to
 
maintain the view that, in contrast to a different-sex couple, a same-sex couple cannot enjoy ‘family life’
 
for the purposes of Article 83
 
”. [Footnotes omitted.]
 
6. It also indicates (para. 173), correctly, that, “in the of case X, Y and Z v. United
 
Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights, following an ample concept of family,
 
acknowledged that a transsexual, their female partner and a child may comprise a family,
 
stating that:
 
When deciding whether a relationship can be said to amount to “family life”, a number of factors may be
 
relevant, including whether the couple live together, the length of their relationship and whether they
 
have demonstrated their commitment to each other by having children together or by any other means.4
 
”
 
7. For greater clarity, and also keeping in mind any future recourse to the case law or
 
rulings of other bodies for the protection of human rights, I shall briefly outline the facts of
 
each case cited, as well as the EHCR’s conclusions of law.
 
Case Schalk and Kopf v. Austria
 
8. The facts of the case may be summarized as follows: the applicants, born in 1962 and
 
1960, respectively, are a same-sex couple living in Vienna. In 2002 they began formalities
 
to be able to marry, but the Austrian authorities considered that they lacked the capacity to
 
contract marriage, given that both applicants were men and, according to Article 44 of the
 
Civil Code, only two persons of opposite sex can marry (paras. 7 to 9). In Austria, the
 
Registered Partnership Act (Eingetragene Partnerschaft-Gesetz) provides same-sex couples
 
with “a formal mechanism for recognizing and giving legal effect to their relationships,” with
 
similar characteristics to those of marriage in many aspects (such as “inheritance law, labor,
 
social and social security law, fiscal law, the law on administrative procedure, the law on
 
data protection and public service, passports and registration issues, as well as the law on
 
foreigners” (paras. 16 to 22). However, a number of differences between marriage and
 
registered partnerships remain in several other aspects, particularly with regard to the
 
possibilities of adoption or access to artificial insemination.
 
9. The legal considerations begin (paras. 24-26) with an analysis of European Union Law
 
(Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental5 Rights and various Directives), and in particular of
 
the laws of the 47 Member States of the Council of Europe (paras. 27 to 34). Only six of
 
these currently grant same-sex couples equal access to marriage; another 13 States have
 
“some kind of legislation permitting same-sex couples to register their relationships.” One
 
3 The judgment in the case Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (No. 30141/04) was delivered by a Chamber of the
 
European Court of Human Rights on June 24, 2010, and became final on November 22, 2010, according to Art.
 
44.2 of the Convention (text established by Protocol N° 11).
 
4 The judgment in the case of X, Y and Z v. United Kingdom (No. 21830/93) was delivered by the Grand
 
Chamber on April 22, 1997.
 
5 The text of this provision states: “Article 9 -Right to marry and to found a family – which guarantees “the
 
right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of that right.” As noted,
 
the reference to “men and women” disappears, but there is a general remit to the provisions of national laws.
 
4
 
State “recognizes cohabiting same-sex couples for limited purposes, but does not offer them
 
the possibility of registration.” With reference to the material, parental and other
 
consequences, the ECHR states that “the legal consequences of registered partnership vary
 
from almost equivalent to marriage to giving relatively limited rights.” The ECHR then
 
considers the general principles and their application to the specific case, and finally
 
examines the applicability of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 and the allegation
 
that it had been violated.
 
10. General principles. The ECHR recalls that, according to its established case-law,
 
“Article 12 secures the fundamental right of a man and a woman to marry and to found a
 
family,” and that the exercise of this right “gives rise to personal, social and legal
 
consequences.” Although it is subject to the national laws of the Contracting States, “the
 
limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right in such a way or to such
 
an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired” (para. 49). Furthermore, the ECHR
 
observes that it “has not yet had an opportunity to examine whether two persons who are
 
of the same sex can claim to have a right to marry,” but that “certain principles might be
 
derived” from its case-law relating to transsexuals, which initially found that “the
 
attachment to the traditional concept of marriage which underpins Article 12 provided
 
sufficient reason for the continued adoption by the respondent State of biological criteria for
 
determining a person’s sex for the purposes of marriage” (paras. 50-51). In the Christine
 
Goodwin6 case, the Court departed from that case-law, noting that there had been “major
 
social changes in the institution of marriage” since the adoption of the Convention, citing
 
Article 9 of the European Charter and, taking into consideration the “widespread acceptance
 
of the marriage of transsexuals in their assigned gender,” found that “the terms used in
 
Article 12… no longer had to be understood as determining gender by purely biological
 
criteria.” Consequently, “the impossibility for a post-operative transsexual to marry in her
 
assigned gender violated Article 12” (para. 52). In two other cases concerning marriages
 
between a woman and a male-to-female transsexual,7 the ECHR had determined (para. 53)
 
that the complaint concerning the legal requirement to end their marriage in order for the
 
transsexual to “obtain full legal recognition of her change of gender” was “manifestly ill-
 
founded.” The ECHR noted that “domestic law only permitted marriage between persons of
 
opposite gender, whether such gender is derived from attribution at birth or from a gender
 
recognition procedure, while same-sex marriages were not permitted,” and that “Article 12
 
enshrined the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.”
 
Although the Court acknowledged that “several Contracting States had extended marriage
 
to include same-sex couples,” it noted that “this reflected their own vision [of said States] of
 
the role of marriage in their societies” but “did not flow from an interpretation of the
 
fundamental right enshrined, as laid down ….in the Convention in 1950”. Therefore, it fell
 
“within the State’s margin of appreciation how to regulate the effects of the change of
 
gender on pre-existing marriages.” Furthermore, if the applicants should opt to divorce,
 
they would have the possibility to enter into a civil partnership, something that “contributed
 
to the proportionality of the gender recognition regime complained of.”
 
11. Application to the specific case. The ECHR stated that Article 12 grants the right to
 
marry to “men and women,” (“l´homme et la femme”) and, although the wording of said
 
Article taken in isolation could be interpreted as “to exclude a marriage between two men or
 
two women,” considered in the context it should be borne in mind that, “in contrast, all
 
other substantive Articles of the Convention grant rights and freedoms to “everyone” or
 
6 Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom (no. 28957/95), Grand Chamber Judgment, July 11, 2002.
 
7 Parry v. the United Kingdom (Dec.), no. 42971/05, ECHR 2006-XV, and R. and F. v. the United Kingdom
 
(Dec.), no. 35748/05, November 28, 2006.
 
5
 
state that “no one” may be subjected to certain types of prohibited treatment.” The choice
 
of the words “men and women” should be considered “deliberate”, particularly in “the
 
historical context” of the 1950s decade, when “marriage was clearly understood in the
 
traditional sense of being a union between partners of different sex.” As regards the
 
“connection between the right to marry and the right to found a family,” in the case of
 
Christine Goodwin the ECHR reached the conclusion that “the inability of any couple to
 
conceive or parent a child” does not exclude per se the right to marry. However, this finding
 
“does not allow for any conclusion regarding the issue of same-sex marriage” (para. 56).
 
Although “the Convention is a living instrument which is to be interpreted in present-day
 
conditions,” and the institution of marriage “has undergone major social changes,” the
 
ECHR noted that “there is no European consensus regarding same-sex marriages,” which
 
are only permitted in six out of 47 States Party to the Convention (para. 58). The case
 
under consideration should be distinguished from the Christine Goodwin case, which had
 
recognized “a convergence of standards concerning the marriage of transsexuals in their
 
assigned gender” and involved a “marriage between partners who are of different gender,”
 
if this is not defined by purely biological criteria (para. 59). [Thus, the ECHR was agreeing
 
with the assertion of the non-governmental organizations intervening in the case, according
 
to which “while the Court had often underlined that the Convention was a living instrument
 
that should be interpreted in present-day conditions, it had only used that approach to
 
develop its jurisprudence when it had perceived a convergence of standards among Member
 
States”.]
 
12. Influence of Article 9 of the European Charter. As to Article 9 of the European Charter
 
(explained in the official commentary), the deliberate elimination of the reference to “men
 
and women” makes the provision broader in its scope that the corresponding articles in
 
other human rights instruments, but “the reference to domestic law reflects the diversity of
 
national regulations, which range from allowing same-sex marriage to explicitly forbidding
 
it” and leaving any decisions on this matter to the States8 (para. 60). Having regard to
 
Article 9 of the Charter, the ECHR concluded that “would no longer consider that the right to
 
marry enshrined in Article 12 must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two
 
persons of the opposite sex,” for which reason said Article was applicable to the case, but
 
emphasized that “the question of whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is left to
 
regulation by the national laws” of each State (para. 61). The Court noted that “marriage
 
has deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society
 
to another,” and that the ECHR “must not rush to substitute its own judgment in place of
 
that of the national authorities, who are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of
 
society” (para. 62). Consequently, it found that “Article 12 of the Convention does not
 
impose an obligation on the respondent Government to grant a same-sex couple like the
 
applicants access to marriage” (para. 63), and ruled that there had been no violation of
 
said Article (para. 64).
 
13. Applicability of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8. According to the ECHR,
 
“Article 149 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its
 
Protocols. It has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to “the
 
enjoyment of the rights and freedoms” safeguarded by those provisions” (para. 89). In
 
several judgments (the last of which was in 200110), the ECHR had held that “the notion of
 
family” in Article 12 also included de facto unions, “where the parties are living together out
 
8 According to the commentary, “it may be argued that there is no obstacle to recognizing same-sex
 
relationships in the context of marriage,” but there is “no explicit requirement that domestic laws should facilitate
 
such marriages”
 
9 For the text, see note 1.
 
10 Mata Estevez v. Spain (Dec.), no. 56501/00, ECHR 2001-VI, May 10, 2001.
 
6
 
of wedlock,” but in the case of same-sex couples it had only recognized that their
 
relationship constitutes “private life” but not “family life” (paras. 91-92). In the case of
 
Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, the ECHR changed that jurisprudence (as correctly indicated in
 
para. 174 of the judgment to which this vote refers), considering that since 2001 there had
 
been “a rapid evolution in social attitudes towards same-sex couples in many Member
 
States”, and “a considerable number” of these had “afforded legal recognition to same-sex
 
couples.” Similarly, certain provisions of European Union law also reflect “a growing
 
tendency to include same-sex couples in the notion of ‘family’” (para. 93). “In view of this
 
evolution,” the ECHR considered it “artificial to maintain the view that, in contrast to a
 
different-sex couple, a same-sex couple cannot enjoy ‘family life’ for the purposes of Article
 
8”, and that, “consequently, the relationship of the applicants, a cohabiting same-sex couple
 
living in a stable de facto partnership, falls within the notion of ‘family life’, just as the
 
relationship of a different-sex couple in the same situation would.” (Para. 94).
 
14. Alleged violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 8. Having concluded that the
 
facts of the case fell within “the notion of ‘private life’ as well as ‘family life’”, and that
 
Article 14 taken together with Article 8 was applicable (para. 95), the ECHR then considered
 
whether it had been violated (paras. 96-110). To reach this determination it would have to
 
find “a difference in the treatment of persons in relevantly similar situations,” which would
 
be “discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification”; in other words, if it
 
does not pursue a “legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of
 
proportionality between the means employed the aim sought to be realized.” In that
 
respect, the States “enjoy a margin of appreciation” (para. 96). On the one hand, “just like
 
differences based on sex, differences based on sexual orientation require particularly serious
 
reasons by way of justification,” but on the other hand, the States are usually allowed “a
 
wide margin” when it comes to “general measures of economic or social strategy” (para.
 
97), and one of the relevant factors for determining the scope of the margin of appreciation
 
may be “the existence or non-existence of common ground.” The ECHR started from “the
 
premise that same-sex couples are just as capable as different-sex couples of entering into
 
stable and committed relationships,” and therefore are in a “relevantly similar situation to a
 
different-sex couple as regards their need for legal recognition and protection of their
 
relationship” (para. 99). Nevertheless, the Court decided that, although the applicants had
 
not been permitted to marry, a law subsequent to lodging their complaint but prior to the
 
judgment (the Registered Partnerships Act11), which entered into force on January 1, 2010)
 
had provided alternative legal recognition (para. 102). While there is “an emerging
 
European consensus toward legal recognition of same-sex couples,” which has “developed
 
rapidly over the past decade,” the States that provide for legal recognition are not yet a
 
majority. This question must therefore be considered as one of “evolving rights with no
 
established consensus, where States must also enjoy a margin appreciation in the timing of
 
the introduction of legislative changes” (para. 105). In conclusion, having examined the
 
juridical status of registered partnerships and the differences that persist with respect to
 
marriages, the ECHR said that it did not see “any indication that the respondent State has
 
exceeded its margin of appreciation in its choice of rights and obligations conferred by
 
registered partnership” (para. 109) and found that there had been no violation of Article 14
 
taken in conjunction with Article 8 (para. 110).
 
Case X, Y and Z v. United Kingdom
 
15. The facts of the case may be summarized as follows: the first applicant, "X", a female-
 
to-male transsexual, was born in 1955. However, from the age of four years “X” felt like a
 
sexual misfit and was drawn to “masculine” behaviour roles. This discrepancy caused him to
 
11 Supra, para. 6.
 
7
 
suffer suicidal depression during adolescence. In 1975, he began hormonal treatment and
 
began to live and work as a man. Since 1979 he has lived in a permanent and stable union
 
with the second applicant, “Y”, a woman born in 1959. Shortly after beginning that
 
relationship, “X” underwent gender reassignment surgery. The third applicant, “Z”12, was
 
born in 1992 to “Y” as a result of artificial insemination by a donor (IAD). Subsequently, “Y”
 
gave birth to another child by the same method. The complaint brought before the ECHR
 
was prompted by the fact that the United Kingdom authorities had denied “X”‘s application
 
to be registered as the father of “Z” in the civil registry.
 
16. Considerations of law. Citing several previous rulings, the ECHR recalled that “the
 
notion of ‘family life’ in Article 8 is not confined solely to families based on marriage and
 
may encompass other de facto relationships,” and added that “when deciding whether a
 
relationship can be said to amount to “family life”, a number of factors may be relevant,
 
including whether the couple live together, the length of their relationship and whether they
 
have demonstrated their commitment to each other by having children together or by any
 
other means (para. 36).” As a starting point, I consider that “regard must be had to the fair
 
balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of individual and of the
 
community as a whole” and that “the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation” (para.
 
41). On the specific point of parental recognition (para. 44), the ECHR observed that “there
 
is no common European standard with respect to the granting of parental rights to
 
transsexuals” and that it has not been established “that there exists any generally shared
 
approach amongst the High Contracting Parties with regard to the manner in which the
 
social relationship between a child conceived by AID and the person who performs the role
 
of father should be reflected in law.” The Court added that, “although the technology of
 
medically assisted procreation has been available in Europe for several decades, many of
 
the issues to which it gives rise, particularly with regard to the question of filiation, remain
 
the subject of debate. For example, there is no consensus amongst the Member States of
 
the Council of Europe on the question of whether the interests of a child conceived in such a
 
way are best served by preserving the anonymity of the donor of the sperm or whether the
 
child should have the right to know the donor’s identity.” Therefore, since the issues in the
 
case “touch on areas where there is little common ground” amongst the Member States of
 
the Council of Europe and, generally speaking, the law appears to be in a transitional stage,
 
the respondent State must be afforded a wide margin of appreciation.” In conclusion it
 
stated, “given that transsexuality raises complex scientific, legal, moral and social issues, in
 
respect of which there is no generally shared approach among the Contracting States, the
 
Court is of the opinion that Article 8 cannot, in this context, be taken to imply an obligation
 
for the respondent State to formally recognize as the father of a child a person who is not
 
the biological father.” Therefore (para. 52), “the fact that the law of the United Kingdom
 
does not allow special legal recognition of the relationship between X and Z does not
 
amount to a failure to respect family life within the meaning of that provision.”
 
17. Clearly, the extensive citation of judgments by the ECHR does not imply that the
 
Inter-American Court should take these as required precedents. As mentioned previously
 
(supra, para. 4), these rulings have “persuasive value” to the extent that the arguments
 
contained therein may be intrinsically convincing, something that will depend, in good
 
measure, “on the status of the Court from which they emanate, and on the personality of
 
the judge who drafted the judgment.”13 In view of the status of the ECHR and the similarity
 
12 In his concurring opinion, Judge L-E. Pettiti stated that “Should there be another case like this one, it
 
would no doubt be desirable for the Commission and the Court to suggest to the parties that a lawyer be instructed
 
specifically to represent the interests of the child alone.”
 
13 Cfr. Alberto Pérez, “Reseña de la vida jurídica angloamericana,” in Revista de Derecho Jurisprudencia y
 
Administración, t. 61, pages. 109-120 (the citation is from page 112).
 
8
 
between its functions and those of the Inter-American Court, the judgments cited in this
 
reasoned vote are of great importance, as we shall see in Chapter II.
 
II. IT IS NOT NECESSARY OR PRUDENT TO INVOKE ARTICLE 17(1)
 
18. As I have already indicated, I do not consider it necessary or prudent to declare a
 
violation of Article 17, which could be taken as an implicit pronouncement on the
 
interpretation of different provisions of said Article. Indeed, Article 17 contains a number of
 
provisions connected with each other, beginning with the declaration of principle that “the
 
family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society,” followed by the provision,
 
within the same paragraph 1, whereby the family “is entitled to protection by society and
 
the State,” and further on several provisions that could be interpreted (a point on which in
 
this vote makes no pronouncement) in a way that presupposes that the family is based on a
 
heterosexual marriage or de facto union. The right to not “be the object of arbitrary or
 
abusive interference with his private life, (or) his family”, enshrined in Article 11(2), is a
 
specific and autonomous aspect of the general duty of protection, so therefore it is not
 
necessary to invoke Article 17(1) cumulatively with Article 11(2). The determination that
 
some of the facts themselves violate a general duty and a specific duty (or the
 
corresponding rights) does not change the nature or severity of the violation, and nor does
 
it lead to different reparations being ordered than if only invoking the provision that
 
enshrines the right or specific duty. Instead, invoking Article 17(1) includes the
 
aforementioned declaration of principle, and, by implication, could encompass the rest of
 
Article 17.
 
19. The declaration of principle regarding the family contained in Article 17(1)essentially
 
agrees with the provisions of many Latin American constitutions:
 
Bolivia: Article 62. The State recognizes and protects families as the fundamental nucleus of
 
society, and guarantees the social and economic conditions necessary for their integral
 
development. All family members have equal rights, obligations and opportunities.
 
Article 63. I. Marriage between a woman and a man is constituted by legal ties and is based on
 
the equal rights and duties of the spouses.
 
II. Free or de facto unions which are stable and monogamous and entered into by a woman and a
 
man without legal impediment, shall have the same effects as a civil marriage, both as regards
 
the personal and patrimonial relations of the spouses and as regards the children adopted or born
 
of these unions.
 
Brazil: Article 226. The family, which is the foundation of society, shall enjoy special protection
 
from the State.
 
This article continues with specific provisions related to wedlock or marriage, and the “stable
 
union between a man and a woman as a family entity,” among other matters.
 
Chile: Article 1 (in Chapter I, Bases of Institutionality). Men are born free and equal in dignity and
 
rights.
 
The family is the basic core of society.
 
The State recognizes and defends the intermediate groups through which society organizes and
 
structures itself and guarantees them the necessary autonomy to fulfill their own specific
 
objectives.
 
The State is at the service of the individual and its goal is to promote common welfare. To this
 
effect, it must contribute to the creation of the social conditions which permit each and every one
 
of the members of the national community to achieve the greatest possible spiritual and material
 
fulfillment, with full respect for the rights and guarantees established by this Constitution.
 
It is the duty of the State to safeguard national security, provide protection for the people and the
 
family, promote the strengthening of the latter, further the harmonious integration of all sectors
 
of the Nation and guarantee everyone the right to participate in national life with equal
 
opportunities.
 
9
 
Colombia: Article 5. The State recognizes, without any discrimination whatsoever, the primacy of
 
the inalienable rights of the individual and protects the family as the basic institution of society.
 
Article 42. The family is the basic nucleus of society. It is formed on the basis of natural or legal
 
ties, by the free decision of a man and a woman to contract matrimony or by their responsible
 
resolve to comply with it.
 
The State and society guarantee the integral protection of the family. The law may determine the
 
inalienable and unseizable family patrimony. The family’s honor, dignity and intimacy are
 
inviolable.
 
Family relations are based on the equality of rights and duties of the couple and on the mutual
 
respect of all its members. Any form of violence in the family is considered destructive of its
 
harmony and unity, and shall be sanctioned according to law.
 
The children born within matrimony or outside it, adopted or conceived naturally or with scientific
 
assistance, have equal rights and duties. The law shall regulate parental responsibility to the
 
offspring.
 
The couple has the right to decide freely and responsibly the number of their children and shall
 
support them and educate them while they are minors or dependents.
 
The forms of marriage, the age and qualifications to contract it, the duties and rights of the
 
spouses, their separation and the dissolution of the marriage ties, shall be determined by civil law.
 
Religious marriages shall have civil effects under the terms established by law.
 
The civil effects of all marriages shall be determined by divorce in accordance with civil law.
 
Also, decrees of annulment of religious marriages issued by the authorities of the respective faiths
 
shall have civil effects within the limits established by law.
 
The law shall determine matters relating to the civil status of individuals and the consequent
 
rights and duties.
 
Costa Rica: Article 51. The family, as the natural unit and foundation of society, is entitled to the
 
special protection of the State. Mothers, children, the elderly and the infirm and destitute are also
 
entitled to such protection.
 
Article 52. Marriage is the essential foundation of the family and is based on the equality of rights
 
between spouses.
 
Article 53. Parents have the same obligations toward children born out of wedlock as to those
 
born within it.
 
Every person has the right to know who his parents are, in accordance with the law.
 
Cuba: Article 35. The State protects the family, motherhood and marriage.
 
The State recognizes the family as the main nucleus of society and attributes to it the important
 
responsibilities and functions in the education and development of the new generations.
 
Article 36. Marriage is the union voluntarily established between a man and a woman, who are
 
legally fit to marry, in order to live together. It is based on full equality of rights and duties of the
 
partners, who must provide for the support of the home and the integral education of the children
 
through a joint effort compatible with the social activities of both.
 
The law regulates the formalization, recognition and dissolution of marriage and the rights and
 
obligations deriving from such acts.
 
Ecuador: Article 67. The family in its various forms is recognized. The State shall protect it as the
 
fundamental core of society and shall guarantee conditions that integrally favor the achievement
 
of its purposes. The family shall be constituted by legal or de facto ties and shall be based on the
 
equal rights and opportunities of its members.
 
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman and shall be based on the free consent of the
 
persons entering into this bond and on equality of rights, obligations and legal capacity.
 
Article 68. The stable and monogamous union between two free individuals without any other
 
marriage ties who establish a common-law home, for the period of time and under the conditions
 
and circumstances stipulated by law, shall enjoy the same rights and obligations as those families
 
bound by formal marriage ties.
 
Adoption shall only be permitted for different gender couples.
 
El Salvador: Article 32. The family is the fundamental basis of society and shall have the
 
protection of the State, which shall dictate the necessary legislation and create the appropriate
 
institutions and services for its integration, well-being and social, cultural and economic
 
development.
 
The legal foundation of the family is marriage which rests on the juridical equality of the spouses.
 
The State shall promote marriage; but the lack of it shall not affect the enjoyment of the rights
 
established in favor of the family.
 
Article 33. The law shall regulate the personal and patrimonial relations between the spouses and
 
between them and their children, establishing the rights and reciprocal duties on an equitable
 
10
 
basis; and shall create the necessary institutions to guarantee its applicability. Likewise it shall
 
regulate family relationships resulting from the stable union of a man and a woman.
 
Nicaragua: Article 70. The family is the fundamental nucleus of society and has the right to
 
protection by society and the State.
 
Article 71. It is the right of Nicaraguans to form a family. ….The law shall regulate and protect this
 
right. …
 
Article 72. Marriage and stable de facto unions are protected by the State; they rest on the
 
voluntary agreement between a man and a woman, and may be dissolved by mutual consent or
 
by the will of one of the parties, as provided by law.
 
Article 73. Family relations rest on respect, solidarity and absolute equality of rights and
 
responsibilities between the man and woman.
 
Parents must work together to maintain the home and provide for the integral development of
 
their children, with equal rights and responsibilities. Furthermore, children are obligated to respect
 
and assist their parents. These duties and rights shall be fulfilled in accordance with to the
 
relevant legislation.
 
Paraguay: Article 49. Protection of the Family
 
The family is the foundation of society. Its comprehensive protection shall be promoted and
 
guaranteed. The family comprises the stable union of a man and a woman, their children and the
 
community formed with any of their ancestors and descendents.
 
Article 50. Right to Constitute a Family
 
Everyone has the right to constitute a family, in whose formation and development a woman and
 
a man shall have the same rights and obligations.
 
Article 51. Marriage and the Effects of De Facto Partnerships
 
The law shall establish the formalities to be observed for marriage between a man and a woman,
 
the requirements for contracting it, the grounds for separation or dissolution and its effects, as
 
well as provisions for the administration of goods and other rights and obligations between
 
spouses.
 
A de facto partnership between a man and a woman, having no legal impediments to contracting
 
marriage and being characterized by stability and monogamy, produces a similar effect to
 
marriage, in accordance with the provisions established by law.
 
Article 52. Union in Marriage
 
The union in marriage of a man and a woman is one of the fundamental elements in the formation
 
of a family.
 
Peru: Article 4. The community and the State extend special protection to children, adolescents,
 
mothers and the aged in a situation of abandonment. They also protect the family and promote
 
marriage. They recognize the latter as natural, fundamental institutions of society.
 
The form of marriage and grounds for separation and dissolution are governed by law.
 
Article 5. The stable union between a man and a woman who, free of any matrimonial
 
impediment, establish a common-law home gives rise to a joint estate subject to the provisions
 
for conjugal partnerships, insofar as these are applicable.
 
Uruguay: Article 40. The family is the basis of our society. The State shall safeguard its moral and
 
material stability, for the optimum development of children within society.
 
Article 41. Parents a duty and a right to care and educate their children so that they may develop
 
their full physical, intellectual and social capabilities. Those having responsibility for a large
 
number of offspring have the right to compensatory assistance, provided that they need this.
 
The law shall make the necessary provision to ensure that children and young people are
 
protected against physical, intellectual or moral neglect by their parents or guardians, as well as
 
against exploitation and abuse.
 
Article 42. Parents have the same duties to children born out of wedlock as to those born within it.
 
Motherhood, whatever the condition or status of the woman, has the right to the protection of
 
society and to assistance in the event of abandonment.
 
Venezuela: Article 75. The State shall protect families as a natural association of society and as
 
the fundamental unit for the overall development of persons. Family relationships are based on
 
equal rights and duties, solidarity, common effort, mutual understanding and reciprocal respect
 
among family members. The State guarantees protection to the mother, father or other person
 
acting as head of a household.
 
Children and adolescents have the right to live, be raised and develop in the bosom of their
 
original family. When this is impossible or contrary to their best interest, they shall have the right
 
to a substitute family, according to law. Adoption has effects similar to those of parenthood, and is
 
11
 
established in all cases for the benefit of the adopted child, according to law. International
 
adoption shall be subordinated to domestic adoption.
 
Article 76. Motherhood and fatherhood are fully protected, whatever the marital status of the
 
mother or father. Couples have the right to decide freely and responsibly the number of children
 
they wish to conceive and are entitled to have access to the information and means necessary to
 
guarantee the exercise of this right. The State guarantees overall assistance and protection for
 
motherhood, in general, from the moment of conception, throughout pregnancy, delivery and the
 
puerperal period, and guarantees full family planning services based on ethical and scientific
 
values.
 
The father and mother have the shared and inescapable obligation of raising, nurturing,
 
educating, maintaining and caring for their children, and the latter have the duty to provide care
 
when the former are unable to care for themselves. The necessary and appropriate measures to
 
guarantee the enforceability of the obligation to provide alimony shall be established by law.
 
Article 77. Marriage between a man and a woman, which is based on free consent and absolute
 
equality of rights and duties of the spouses, is protected. A stable de facto union between a man
 
and a woman which meets the requirements established by law shall have the same effects as
 
marriage.
 
20. I agree with the notion of an evolving interpretation that considers the American
 
Convention as a living instrument to be understood according to present-day circumstances,
 
but on the understanding that in order to make progress in that area it is necessary to
 
reach a consensus, or common ground or a convergence of standards among the States
 
Party (see supra, para. 9 (11). This is the case as regards the recognition that
 
discrimination based on sexual orientation should be understood as prohibited (paras. 83 to
 
93 of the Judgment), since a clear concept exists in this respect, not only among the States
 
Party to the American Convention, but also among all Member States of the OAS, expressed
 
in the resolutions of the General Assembly cited (note 97).
 
21. The same cannot be said with respect to the evolution of the notion of the family and
 
its status as the foundation or basic or natural element of society, which continues to be
 
present in the Constitutions of many States Party (supra, para. 19). The irrefutable fact that
 
there are currently many different concepts of ‘family, as stated in note 191 of the
 
judgment14, does not necessarily mean that each and every one of these must correspond
 
to what the American Convention understands by family - even with an evolving
 
interpretation according to the parameters mentioned (supra, paras. 9 (11) and 18) - as the
 
“natural and fundamental element of society,” or to what the States Party with similar
 
provisions understand as such. Nor does it mean to say that all States Party must recognize
 
14 The text of note 191 states the following (cursives added): “The United Nations Committee on the
 
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation No. 21 (13th period of sessions, 1994).
 
Equality in marriage and in family relationships, para. 13 (“the form and the concept of the family can vary from
 
State to State and even between regions within a State. Whatever form its takes, and whatever the legal system,
 
religion, custom or tradition within the country, the treatment of women in the family, both at law and in private,
 
must conform to the principles of equality and justice for all people, as Article 2 of the Convention requires”);
 
Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 7. Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood,
 
CRC/C/GC/7, September 30, 2005, paras. 15 and 19 (“The Committee recognizes that ‘family’ here refers to a
 
variety of arrangements that can provide for young children’s care, nurturance and development, including the
 
nuclear family, the extended family and other traditional and modern community-based arrangements, provided
 
that these are consistent with children’s rights and best interests. […] the Committee notes that in practice family
 
patterns are variable and changing in many regions, as is the availability of informal networks of support for
 
parents, with an overall trend towards greater diversity in family size, parental roles and arrangements for bringing
 
up children”); Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 19 (39th period of sessions, 1990). The Family
 
(Article 23), HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I), para. 2 (“The Committee notes that the concept of family may differ in
 
some respects from State to State, and even from region to region within a State, and that it is therefore not
 
possible to give the concept a standard definition”). Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General
 
Comment No. 16 (32nd period of sessions, 1988). Right to Privacy (Article 17), HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I), para. 5
 
(“Regarding the term "family", the objectives of the Covenant require that for the purposes of Article 17, this term
 
be given a broad interpretation that includes all those comprising the family, as understood in the society of the
 
State Party concerned.”)
 
12
 
all the concepts or models of family. Indeed, in General Comment N° 19, the Human Rights
 
Committee, in the same paragraph in which it notes that :
 
“…the concept of family may differ in some respects from State to State, and even between regions within
 
a State, so that it is not possible to give a standard definition of the concept.”
 
22. Emphasizes that:
 
“…when a group of persons is regarded as a family under the legislation and practice of a State, it must be
 
given the protection referred to in Article 23. Consequently States Parties should report on how the
 
concept and scope of the family is construed or defined in their own society and legal system. Where
 
diverse concepts of family, "nuclear" and "extended”, exist within a State, this should be indicated with an
 
explanation of the degree of protection afforded to each one. In view of the existence of various forms of
 
family, such as unmarried couples and their children or single parents and their children, States Parties
 
should also indicate whether and to what extent such types of family and their members are recognized
 
and protected by domestic laws and practice.” (Cursives added)
 
23. In other words, it is one of the areas in which it is most essential to allow a national
 
margin of appreciation. For this purpose it will be necessary to conduct an inquiry, which is
 
not appropriate to undertake in this case, but should be done whenever the point is raised
 
in a case brought before this Court and the arguments in that regard presented by the
 
parties and by any amici curiai are heard.
 
24. All this reaffirms my conviction that in this case it is not necessary or prudent to
 
declare a violation of paragraph 1 of Article 17 which could be taken as an implicit
 
pronouncement on the interpretation of the different provisions of said Article.
 
Alberto Pérez Pérez
 
Judge
 
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri
 
Secretary
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
==Referensi==
 
[[Kategori:Perkara hak asasi manusia]]
Diperoleh dari "https://wiki-indonesia.club/wiki/Atala_Riffo_and_Daughters_v._Chile"