49. Regarding this, the Commission first notes that, considering that in this case, the restriction and differentiated treatment are based on one of the categories protected under Article 1(1) of the Convention, a rigorous justification with much weight is required from the State to justify the differentiated treatment. 50. For example, in the case of Atala Riffo v. Chile, on examining the suitability of the invoked aim of the “best interest of the child” as a justification for the measure of removing her daughters from her care and custody because of her sexual orientation, the Inter-American Court found that: (...) “the child’s best interest” being considered as a legitimate goal, in abstract terms, the mere reference to this purpose, without specific proof of the risks or damage to the girls that could result from the mother’s sexual orientation, cannot serve as a suitable measure to restrict a protected right like the right to exercise all human rights without discrimination based on the person’s sexual orientation.26 51. The Commission notes that the State limited itself to generically invoking “sovereignty” without justifying or explaining in detail its reasoning for why conferring the authority to attest public documents to a foreigner would endanger national sovereignty. In this regard, the State did not in any way prove that the differentiated treatment contributed to the aim indicated. 52. Second, with regard to the State’s argument that notaries are public officials and, therefore, must be citizens, the Commission notes first that in neither domestic legislation nor the comparative legislation available are notaries identified as public servants or officials, as they do not represent the will of the State. 53. Thus, for example, as indicated above, the Law Regulating the Notarial Processing of Voluntary Legal Matters in Guatemala establishes that notaries are “accessories to the judiciary” and “effectively collaborate with the courts through the authority to attest documents in the processing of legal acts (...) That, for these reasons, the notary profession shall be expanded to include the different acts that are not contested to facilitate the execution of civil acts (...).27 54. The Commission highlights that although the Guatemalan Penal Code stipulates in its general provisions in Article I that “Notaries shall be considered public officials in the context of crimes committed during or for the purposes of acts related to the exercise of their profession,”28 this explicitly refers to criminal matters, with the intention of issuing a more serious reproach to notaries in view of the special relevance of their functions. 55. For its part, the European Parliament has underscored that “the profession of notary has a number of basic, virtually common characteristics, the most important being: a partial delegation of state sovereignty to carry out a public service in respect of the authenticity of contracts and evidence; independent public-service activity exercised within a liberal profession (...) but subject to supervision by the State –or by the statutory body to which this responsibility is delegated by the public authorities (...).”29 56. Likewise, in Argentina, the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 in the case of Vadell to limit the reasons for which a notary cannot be considered a public official. The judge ruled as follows: (...) 10) That nevertheless, a literal reading of the provision is not enough to explain the condition sub judice, and therefore a systematic exegesis of the legal statue on the notary profession is in order. In this regard, although there is no doubt that, as an attestor to documents, the notary is vested by the State with a public function under its supervision (articles 17, 35, and following of law 12,990), it is clear that this office does not have the characteristics of a public employee relationship, in which they can be held responsible for the consequences of their performance. Effectively, there is no organic department within the branches of government under which notaries fall. They are not subject to any hierarchical subordination, nor do they have the other characteristics of a permanent link to government, such as through their form of remuneration. Inter-American Court. Case of Atala Riffo and girls v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 110. 27 Decree 54-77 Law Regulating the Notarial Processing of Voluntary Legal Matters. 28 Decree 17-73, Penal Code of Guatemala. 29 Resolution of the European Parliament. Profession of notary in the Community, OJEC No 44/36, 18 January 1994. 26 10