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. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.), 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. 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 inlaws;” iv) that Ms. Atala used the Court’s fax “to send information about sexual minorities to 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. 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! Marcador no definido., page 5933. 69