I. INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION 1. On September 17, 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) filed a claim against the Republic of Chile (hereinafter, the “State” or “Chile") in relation to case 12.5023. The initial petition was lodged before the Inter-American Commission on November 24, 2004 by Ms. Karen Atala Riffo, (hereinafter “Ms. Atala”) represented by attorneys of the Asociación Gremial Libertades Públicas, Clinica de Acciones de Interés Público of Diego Portales University and Fundación Ideas4. 2. On July 23, 2008, the Commission approved Report on Admissibility No. 42/08 and on December 18, 2009, it approved the Report on Merits No. 139/09, according to article 50 of the American Convention5. On September 17, 2010, the Inter-American Commission considered that the State had not complied with the recommendations made in the Merits Report, for which reason it decided to submit the instant case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The Inter-American Commission appointed Commissioner Luz Patricia Mejía, and Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton as its delegates in this case. Assistant Executive Secretary Elizabeth Abi-Mershed and attorneys Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Rosa Celorio and María Claudia Pulido, Specialists of the Executive Secretariat of the Commission, were designated to act as legal advisors. 3. According to the Commission, the present case concerns the alleged international responsibility of the State for discriminatory treatment and arbitrary interference in the private and family life suffered by Ms. Atala due to her sexual orientation, in the legal process that resulted in the loss of care and custody of her daughters M., V and R. The case also concerns the alleged failure to take into account the best interests of the girls, whose custody and care were determined without having regard to their rights, and on the basis of alleged discriminatory prejudices. The Commission requested the Court to declare the violation of Articles 11 (Right to Privacy), 17.1 and 17.4 (Rights of the Family), 19 (Rights of the Child), 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to article 1.1 thereof. Likewise, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to adopt reparation measures. 3 At the request of the Inter-American Commission, the identity of the three daughters of Ms. Karen Atala Riffo, shall not be disclosed. Such daughters shall be referred to as “M., V. and R.”. Moreover, at the request of the representatives, in order to protect the right to private and family life of M., V. and R., the affidavits forwarded by the parties and "related to the family situation" of Ms. Atala and her daughters shall not be disclosed. (Case file, volume III, page 1162) 4 In the initial petition, Ms. Atala indicated that Fundación Ideas was represented by Francisco Estévez Valencia and she appointed Verónica Undurraga Valdés, Claudio Moraga Klenner, Felipe González Morales and Domingo Lovera Parmo as her representatives before the Inter-American Commission (record of appendices to the petition, volume III, pages 1533 and 1572). 5 In Merits Report No. 139/09, the Commission concluded that the State of Chile “did violate the right of Karen Atala to live free from discrimination as provided in Article 24 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof.” Moreover, “the State also violated articles 11.2, 17.4, 19, 8.1, and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to the individuals identified in the corresponding sections”. The Commission recommended that the State of Chile: i) "[p]rovide Karen Atala and M., V., and R. with comprehensive redress for the human rights violations that arose from the decision […] taking into consideration their situation and needs” and ii) [a]dopt legislation, public policies, programs and initiatives to prohibit and eradicate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation from all spheres of public power, including the administration of justice. These measures must be accompanied by adequate human and financial resources to guarantee their implementation, and training/re-education programs for the public officials involved in upholding those rights”. Merits Report No.139/09, Case 12.502, Karen Atala and daughters of December 18, 2009 (record of appendices to the application, volume I, annex 2, pages 22 to 67). 4