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 wellbeing” 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 23