39. The Commission and the Court have found that the principle of equal protection and non-discrimination is a central and fundamental pillar of the inter-American human rights system. The notion of equality springs directly from the oneness of the human family and is linked to the essential dignity of the individual, and that principle cannot be reconciled with the notion that a given group has the right to privileged treatment because of its perceived superiority; it is equally irreconcilable with that notion to characterize a group as inferior and treat it with hostility or otherwise subject it to discrimination in the enjoyment of rights which are accorded to others not so classified. The Court’s caselaw has indicated that at the current moment of the development of international law, the fundamental principle of equal protection and nondiscrimination has taken on the status of jus cogens. This principle, on which rests the entire legal framework of the national and international public order, permeates all legal systems.18 40. The principle of equal protection and nondiscrimination incorporates two concepts: “(...) a negative concept related to the prohibition of arbitrary differentiation of treatment, and an affirmative concept related to the obligation of States Party to create real equal conditions toward groups who have been historically excluded or who are exposed to a greater risk of being discriminated.”19 41. With regard to the first concept, which is pertinent to this case, the Inter-American Court has emphasized, based on the origins of the case law on the subject, that not all differentiated treatment is discriminatory and that it must be determined whether it is objectively and reasonably justified.20 The Inter-American Court has emphasized that “with a ban on discrimination based on one of the protected categories set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention, any restriction of a right must be rigorously justified, with great weight, and the burden of proof must be inverted, meaning that the authority must demonstrate that its decision has no discriminatory purpose or effect.”21 42. Likewise, the Commission recalls that one of the immediate obligations emanating from the right to work consists of guaranteeing its exercise without any discrimination and the adoption of measures or deliberate and specific steps that are aimed at fully realizing that right and are neither applied progressively nor dependent on the availability of resources. States have an obligation to adopt all adequate and reasonable measures to protect the individuals under their jurisdiction from violations of the right to work committed by third parties.22 2. Analysis of this case 43. In this case, it must first be determined if the alleged victim was restricted from exercising a right protected by the American Convention, and second, whether the restriction was compatible with the Convention. Regarding the first aspect, the Commission recalls that the alleged victim studied law and the notary profession in Guatemala. However, several administrative and judicial rulings prevented him from exercising the profession of notary based on article 2 of the Code of the Notary Profession, which establishes Inter-American Court. Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 109. 19 Inter-American Court. Case of Furlan and relatives v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 267. 20 Inter-American Court. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paras. 55 and 56. 21 Inter-American Court. Case of Granier et al. (RCTV) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, para. 228. Also see, IACHR. Application before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of the Karen Atala and daughters v. the State of Chile. Case 12,502. September 17, 2010, para. 88. Also CO-24/17, in which the Inter-American Court underscored that when the differentiating criteria corresponds to characteristics protected under Article 1(1) of the Convention, referring to: i) the permanent characteristics of persons that cannot be changed without separating them from an identity; ii) groups that have traditionally been marginalized, excluded, or subordinated; and iii) criteria that are irrelevant for the equitable distribution of goods, rights, or social responsibilities, the Court views it as an indication that the State has acted arbitrarily. Inter-American Court. Advisory Opinion OC-24/17 of November 24, 2017, Requested by the Republic of Costa Rica, on gender identity, and equality and nondiscrimination with regard to same-sex couples, para. 66. 22 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 18, February 6, 2006, para. 31. 18 8