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 238 different to the child’s opinion . 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. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). 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 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 . 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 (record on merits, volume II, pages 935, 939, 940) 239 Brief of the President of the Committee of Judges of the Court of Oral Criminal Trials of Villarrica, March 17, 2003 (record of merits, volume XIII, page 7040). 65