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: 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 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. 172 Written statement rendered by expert Miguel Cillero Bruñol, August 4, 2011 (record of merits, volume II, page 929). 173 Written statement rendered by expert Robert Wintemute, September 16, 2011 (record of merits, volume XI, page 5355). 174 Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, para. 137, opinion 2. 50