77 the fact that the State failed to adopt the measures tending to repair the vulnerable situation of Mr. Vélez Loor in light of his status as an irregular migrant. In addition, “it issued and applied clearly arbitrary norms[,] based on discriminatory concepts and prejudices[,] and blatantly violated those guarantees embodied in the legal code to prevent and remedy the breach of fundamental rights.” The Commission did not analyze the alleged violations in light of said obligations. The State sustained that the Panamanian domestic legal code provided for sufficient provisions to ensure all persons under its jurisdiction, nationals or aliens, an equal and non-discriminatory treatment. 253. Regarding what was alleged by the representatives, the Court recalls that the general obligation contained in Article 1(1)292 refers to the State’s duty to respect and guarantee “non-discrimination” in the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the American Convention, while Article 24293 protects the right to “equal treatment before the law.”294 In other words, if the State discriminates upon the respect or guarantee of a conventional right, the fact must be analyzed pursuant to Article 1(1) and the substantial right in question. If, on the contrary, the alleged discrimination refers to unequal protection by domestic law, the fact must be analyzed in light of Article 24 therein.295 Therefore, the alleged discrimination regarding the rights contained in the Convention that were alleged by the representatives must be analyzed pursuant to the general duty to respect and guarantee the conventional rights without discrimination, enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 254. The Tribunal emphasized the necessary measures that States must adopt to guarantee effective and equal access to justice to all persons who are in a serious vulnerable situation, such as an irregular migrant subjected to a measure of deprivation of liberty. Hence, it focused on the notification of the right to consular assistance (supra para. 152), and the requirement to have legal counsel, in the circumstances of Mr. Vélez Loor (supra paras. 132 and 146). In the present case, it has been proven that Mr. Vélez Loor did not have said assistance, which made ineffective his ability to access and pursue remedies to challenge the measures that deprived him of liberty, involving an unjustifiable impairment of his right of access to justice. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the State failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee, without discrimination, the right to access to justice under the terms of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Loor. 292 Article 1(1) of the Convention states that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 293 Article 24 of the Convention states that: All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 294 Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. supra note 289, paras. 53 and 54; Case of Rosendo Cantú, supra note 27, para. 183, and Case of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 27, para. 199. 295 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 27, para. 199, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 183.