331. The provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and ILO Conventions Nos. 138 and 182461 incorporate the corpus iuris in this regard. Article 32 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that “States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.” The same article indicates that States Parties shall “provide for a minimum age for admission to employment.” Meanwhile, article 3 of ILO Convention 138 indicates that “[t]he minimum age for admission to any type of employment or work which by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out is likely to jeopardise the health, safety or morals of young persons shall not be less than 18 years.” Similarly, ILO Convention 182 establishes that “all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour,” and “work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children” are considered among the worst forms of child labor.462 332. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the obligations that the State must meet in order to eliminate the worst forms of child labor are a priority and include the design and implementation of programs of action to ensure children the full enjoyment and exercise of their rights.463 Specifically, States have the obligation to: (i) prevent the engagement of children in the worst forms of child labour; (ii) provide the necessary and appropriate direct assistance for the removal of children from the worst forms of child labour and for their rehabilitation and social integration; (iii) ensure access to free basic education, and, wherever possible and appropriate, vocational training, for all children removed from the worst forms of child labour; (iv) identify and reach out to children at special risk; and (v) take account of the special situation of girls.464 333. The facts of this case leave no doubt that Antônio Francisco da Silva was subjected to the forms of child labor indicated above because, as previously determined, he was a victim of slavery. Therefore, when it became aware of the concrete situation of violence and slavery to which the minor had been subjected, and the possibility that other minors were in the same situation, as well as the egregious nature of the facts involved, the State should have adopted effective measures to end the situation of slavery that had been identified and to ensure the rehabilitation and social integration of Antônio Francisco da Silva, as well as his access to basic education and, if possible, vocational training. B.12. Structural discrimination 334. Regarding structural discrimination, the Court points out that the representatives included the alleged violation of Article 24 of the Convention (Right to Equal Protection) in their brief with final arguments, even though they failed to submit any argument or explanation for this inclusion and change in position. Accordingly, the Court recalls that, while the general obligation under Article 1(1) refers to the State’s obligation to respect and ensure the rights contained in the American Convention “without discrimination,” Article 24 protects the right to equal protection of the law.”465 In other words, Article 24 of the American ILO, Convention No. 138 concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment (Entry into force: June 19, 1976); Convention No. 182, Preamble and Article 3. 461 462 ILO, Convention No. 182, Article 3. 463 Cf. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18 and 32. 464 ILO, Convention No. 182, Article 7. Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paras. 53 and 54, and Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310, para. 94. 465 85