that is not real, since what exists is the defense of a good or superior right of protection. In these cases, the judge should prefer a right over the other, primarily resulting in the rights of the children over the rights of the mother.” 26 The State alleges that the Supreme Court decision was based on a variety of elements including the circumstances of the girls, the merits of the evidence considered in the process, the social, family and educational deterioration that they experienced, and the discrimination that they suffered by their own friends. 27 37.Furthermore, the State argues that the facts alleged do not amount to a violation of the right of the petitioner to live free from arbitrary and abusive interferences in her private and family life. According to the State, the ruling that allegedly violates her human rights was delivered in a custody suit brought by the former spouse of Ms. Atala and, therefore, the Chilean courts were compelled “to hear and decide it by reason of the principle of inexcusability recognized by the Political Charter and Organic Code of the Courts.” 28 Therefore, when the courts of justice are required to intervene at the request of a party with standing to sue, in order to settle a family dispute generated by the inability of the individuals to settle it themselves, they are not committing any undue interference or abuse but, rather, performing their own duty to resolve conflicts for the good of social peace, in exercise of an inalienable prerogative of the State. 38.By the same token, the State dismisses the allegations of failure to respect the psychological and mental integrity as well as the dignity and honor of Ms. Atala by virtue of the fact that the Supreme Court's decision took into consideration the petitioner’s homosexuality and her cohabitation with a person of the same sex. According to the State, those circumstances were the basis of the complainant’s suit and the object of the petitioner’s defense and, therefore, were inevitably examined and weighed in the decision in the case. 39. The State also argues that the award of custody of the girls to their father was not the result of any discrimination prohibited by the American Convention. In the opinion of the State, the decision was not prompted by the homosexuality of Ms. Atala, but by the effect that her cohabitation with another person of the same sex could have on the wellbeing and psychological and emotional development of her daughters. Those were the overriding considerations in the disputed ruling, and not the decision of the petitioner to declare her homosexuality “whose legitimate exercise as a private right was expressly acknowledged by the judgment.” 29 The State therefore alleges that was the situation of the girls, “which, at least in the current climate in Chilean society, may be considered peculiar and it deemed it just cause to award custody to the father because the best interests of the girls made it essential.” 30 40. In the hearing before the IACHR, the State also noted that "the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice focuses on the best interests of the child. In one of its arguments, the Supreme Court mentions that Chile has a conservative cultural environment. For example, divorce only became possible two years ago. If to that one adds the public exposure of the mother’s sexual preference, the difficulties that the case was creating for the girls were clear to the State”. 31 41. With these arguments, the State concludes that, given that none of the violations alleged by the petitioners have any substance, the Commission should declare the petition inadmissible because this organ is not competent to review a decision rendered by a domestic tribunal in exercise of its powers and in accordance with due process. 26 27 28 29 30 31 Response of the State of Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Human Rights, March 31, 2008. Response of the State of Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Human Rights, March 31, 2008. Response of the State of Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Human Rights, June 15, 2005. Response of the State of Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Human Rights, June 15, 2005. Response of the State of Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Human Rights, June 15, 2005. IACHR, Hearing, Case 12.502, Karen Atala and Daughters, 124th Regular Session, March 7, 2006. 9