on Sandra Pavez’s rights was less than the interference that a different action would have had on the right to freedom of religion of the Catholic community, its members and the children and parents who benefit from denominational religious education. 81 In addition, it referred to the ministerial exception according to which the right to non-discrimination in employment applies differently to religious communities by virtue of the separation between churches and the State, and that this provision applies to the circumstances of the specific case. 51. Regarding the right to equality and non-discrimination, the State argued that there had been no violation because there was no difference in treatment based on a suspect category, inasmuch as Supreme Decree No 924 does not expressly or implicitly contemplate differentiated treatment based on sexual orientation. It asserted that the requirement of the certificate of suitability and the reassignment of duties did not constitute differentiated treatment, that the withdrawal of said certificate by the Vicariate was based on religious requirements of consistency of conduct or way of life as part of the criterion of suitability, and that the decision of the national judge was based on respect for religious freedom. 52. With respect to the right to honor, the State indicated that it did not delegate public powers to the ecclesiastical authorities or allow “prior inquiries” into the private life of Ms. Pavez. It added that she was fully aware that the Catholic Church, in exercise of its rights as a religious community, would pay attention to certain aspects related to her personal life in order to issue the certificate of suitability and that Ms. Pavez’ private life was made public prior to the revocation of her certificate of suitability. B. Considerations of the Court 53. The Commission and the representatives alleged that the State is responsible for the violation of privacy and autonomy, of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, access to public service under conditions of equality, and the right to work, established in Articles 11(2), 24, 23(1)(c) and 26 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Sandra Pavez Pavez. This is based on the revocation of her certificate of suitability by the Vicariate for Education of San Bernardo, which was related exclusively to her sexual orientation, and the subsequent reassignment of her duties at the school, which meant that she could no longer work as a teacher of the Catholic religion. According to the Commission and the representatives, this responsibility is attributable to the State owing to: a) the existence of a norm that is not compatible with the American Convention insofar as it confers on a third party - in this case a religious authoritythe power to issue certificates of suitability to teachers of religious education in public educational establishments; b) a breach of the duty to respect given that the Vicariate revoked the certificate by exercising public authority, and c) a breach of the duty to guarantee those rights inasmuch as there were no subsequent controls or review by the judicial authorities regarding the conformity of the revocation of the certificate with international human rights standards. Finally, they argued that Ms. Pavez Pavez’s right to privacy was violated through the inquiries that were allegedly made about her sexual orientation and her family situation. 54. The State contended that the actions of the Vicariate should be viewed in light of the right to freedom of conscience and religion contained in Article 12 of the American Convention, which includes the right of parents and, if applicable, guardians, to ensure that their children or wards receive a religious and moral education that is in keeping with their own convictions. It argued that in this specific case, the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives did not occur, 81 It recalled that a certificate of suitability is not a requirement to teach, and its loss does not automatically result in a teacher’s dismissal or in the non-renewal of his/her contract. Moreover, the law does not disqualify a teacher from teaching other subjects, including religion classes on behalf of other religious communities, if they so wish. In this case, Ms. Pavez’s employment contract not only continued, but she was even offered a promotion to the position of inspector general, which resulted in an increase in her salary and her continued employment within the same educational community to which she was linked. She retained her teaching hours and her job security over time, under the same conditions as for all other education professionals in Chile, and there was no objective and concrete deterioration in her job. The only consequence of the withdrawal of the certificate of suitability was that her duties were reassigned, in accordance with the exercise of ius variandi, but without losing her status as a teacher. 17