223. During the hearing, the State declared that, according to the facts of the case, the case file does not reveal that the Haitian victims were subjected to discriminatory treatment. It indicated that there is no structural or institutionalized context of discrimination based on race or origin against Haitians or their descendants. It also asserted that there was never any intention of causing bodily harm to the persons in the truck during the pursuit. In general, the undocumented Haitians were never subjected to discriminatory, racist or any other type of treatment intended to harass them owing to their migratory status. It declared that 90% of Haitian nationals who live in Dominican Republic do so illegally and yet the Dominican State “has been reaching out a friendly hand to the Haitian nationals from a financial point of view, as well as from an employment and social perspective.” B. Considerations of the Court 224. The Court has established that Article 1(1) of the Convention is a general norm the content of which extends to all the provisions of the treaty, because it establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect and ensure the full and free exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein “without any discrimination.” In other words, whatever the origin or the form it takes, any conduct that could be considered discriminatory with regard to the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed in the Convention is per se incompatible with it.280 Non-compliance by the State, owing to any discriminatory practice, with the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights results in its international responsibility. 281 Thus, there is an indissoluble connection between the obligation to respect and ensure human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination.282 225. The principle of the equal and effective protection of the law and of nondiscrimination constitutes a noteworthy element of the system for the protection of human rights embodied in numerous international instruments283 and developed by legal doctrine 280 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v.Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 78. 281 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 85.. 282 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 53, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 268. 283 Cf. Case of Xákmok Kásek v. Paraguay, supra, para. 269. The following are some of these international instruments:  Charter of the OAS (Article 3.l);  American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (Article II);  American Convention on Human Rights (Articles 1 and 24);  Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Protocol of San Salvador” (Article 3);  Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Articles 4.f, 6 and 8.b);  Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (Articles I.2.a, II, III, IV and V);  Charter of the United Nations (Article 1.3);  Universal Declaration on Human Rights(Articles 2 and 7);  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Articles 2.2 and 3);  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 2.1 and 26);  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Article 2);  Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 2);  Declaration on the Rights of the Child (Principle 1);  International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (Articles 1.1, 7, 18.1, 25, 27, 28, 43.1, 43.2, 45.1, 48, 55 and 70); 60