B. Fair trial and judicial protection in relation to right to equality before the law and right to privacy (articles 817, 1118 2419 and 2520 of the American Convention, in relation to article 1.1 of the same instrument) 1. General standards on equality and nondiscrimination and privacy 30. The Inter American Court has held that the notion of equality stems directly from the nature of unity of mankind and it is inseparable of essential dignity of the person, in front of which it is incompatible any situation that, for considering a determined group superior, leads to treating it with privilege; or that, on the contrary, for considering it inferior, treats it with hostility or in any way discriminates of the benefit of rights recognized for those not considered to be in such situation. The jurisprudence of the Court has pointed out that, at the current stage of evolution of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and nondiscrimination has entered the area of ius cogens. Upon it relies the legal framework of national and international public order and permeates the whole legal regime21. 31. The Inter American system not only takes a formal notion of equality formal, limited to demand objective and reasonable criteria of distinction and, therefore, forbid unreasonable unequal, capricious or arbitrary, treatment, but moves forward to a concept of material or structural equality which starts from recognizing that certain sectors of the population require the adoption of affirmative measures of equalization. This implies the need of differentiated treatment when, due to circumstances that affect a disadvantaged group, the equality of treatment supposes suspending or limiting the access to a service, good or the exercise of a right22. 32. In regard to sexual orientation, as of the case of Atala Riffo and girls versus Chile and in subsequent cases, the Inter American Court clarified what is meant by the phrase “any other social condition” of article 1.1 of the Convention23. According to the Court: The Inter American Court has established that the sexual orientation and gender identity of persons are categories protected by the Convention. Therefore, it is outlawed by the Convention any discriminatory norm, act or practice based on the sexual orientation of the person. Consequently, no norm, decision or practice of domestic law, either by state authorities or by privates, may diminish or restrict, in any way, the rights of a person upon their sexual orientation24. In this sense, the Inter American instrument forbids discrimination, in general, including in it, categories such as sexual orientation which may not serve as grounds to deny or restrict any of the rights set forth in the Convention. The aforesaid would be opposite to the set forth in article 1.1 of the American Convention25. Article 8.1. 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 17 Article 11. 1. Every person has the right to his honor respected and his dignity recognized. 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. 3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 19 Article 24. All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 20 Article 25.1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 21 IHR Court. Case of Flor Freire Vs. Ecuador. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Sentence of August 31, 2016. Serie C No. 315. Para 109. 22 IACHR. Report on Poverty and Human Rights in the Americas, September 7, 2017, para 160 23 IHR Court. Case of Atala Riffo and girls vs. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Sentence of February 24, 2012. Serie C No. 239, para 91 and 93. 24 IHR Court. Case of Duque vs. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Sentence of February 26, 2016. Serie C No. 310, para 104. 25 IHR Court. Case of Duque vs. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Sentence of February 26, 2016. Serie C No. 310, para 105. 18 10