inasmuch as the religious authorities have the autonomy to appoint religious education teachers, and that Ms. Pavez Pavez was not a public official, she was not dismissed from her job, her duties were merely reassigned, and that in all cases the restriction of these rights would comply with a strict test of proportionality. 55. Based on the content of the State’s arguments, the Court will proceed to analyze the alleged violations of the rights to privacy and autonomy, to have access to public service under conditions of equality, and to work, taking into account the right to freedom of conscience and religion contained in Article 12 of the American Convention in the educational context. 56. The Court will examine the arguments of the parties and the Commission in the following order: 1) general considerations on the principle of equality and non-discrimination, the rights to freedom of conscience and religion, to privacy and autonomy, to equal access to public service and to work; 2) the alleged conventional nature of Decree 924, and 3) the alleged discrimination and alleged violation of the rights to privacy and autonomy, access to public service and to work to the detriment of Sandra Pavez Pavez. B.1. General considerations on the principle of equality and non-discrimination, the rights to freedom of conscience and religion, to privacy and autonomy, to equal access to public service, and to work a) The rights to privacy, personal liberty, equality and non-discrimination of persons based on their sexual orientation 57. The Convention contains a universal clause for the protection of dignity, which is based on the principle of the individual’s autonomy and on the idea that all persons should be treated as equals, inasmuch as these are ends in themselves according to their intentions, will and their own life decisions. In addition, the American Convention recognizes the inviolability of private and family life, among other protected spheres. This area of a person’s private life is characterized as a space of freedom exempt and immune from abusive or arbitrary interference by third parties or public authorities. 82 58. At the same time, the Court has specified that the protection of the right to private life is not limited to the right to privacy, since it encompasses a series of factors related to the dignity of the individual, including, for example, the capacity to develop his or her own personality and aspirations, determine his or her identity and define his or her personal relationships. The concept of privacy also covers aspects of physical and social identity, including the right to personal autonomy and personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and with the outside world. The effective realization of the right to private life is decisive for the possibility of exercising personal autonomy in relation to the future course of events that are relevant for an individual’s quality of life. Furthermore, private life encompasses the way in which individuals see themselves and how they decide to project themselves towards others, this being an essential condition for the free development of the personality. 83 59. That said, a crucial aspect of the recognition of dignity is the possibility, accorded to all human beings, of self-determination and to freely choose the options and circumstances that give meaning 82 Cf. Gender identity, equality and non-discrimination of same-sex couples. State obligations in relation to change of name, gender identity, and the rights derived from a bond between same-sex couples (Interpretation and Scope of Articles 1(1), 3, 7, 11(2), 13, 17, 18 and 24, in relation to Article 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-24/17 of November 24, 2017. Series A No. 24, para. 86, Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 149; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 194, and Case of Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 1, 2020. Series C No. 411, para. 102. 83 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, para. 87, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para. 204. 18