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) 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 177 Cf. Case of the Ituango Masacres 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. 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! Marcador no definido., 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! Marcador no definido., para. 119, and Case Fernández Ortega et al., supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 129, citing ECHR, Case Niemietz, supra note 159, para. 29, and Case Peck, supra note 159, para. 57. 52