B. 13. STATE The state indicated that it had no objections to the facts described by the petitioner. 14. It pointed out that the formal separation of Catholic Church and state had been in force since 1925, a fact attested to by the autonomy enjoyed by churches and religions coexisting in the country with respect to religious matters. It argued that, as a result, the decisions adopted by the Catholic Church in areas that come under its exclusive jurisdiction must not be interpreted or interfered with by actions of the lay state. 15. The state contended that Decree 924 is consistent with what the American Convention sets forth regarding the freedom of conscience and religion. It stated that this norm does not interfere nor does it express any view, rather it confines itself to granting to each religion the possibility of deciding, on the basis of its beliefs, which characteristics those who teach its religion must have. It argued that the power is not arbitrary as its involves a legitimate authority established to guarantee the independence of churches. 16. It pointed out that, without detriment to the above, the Decree referred to is being the subject of a review “regarding the relevance of a modification aimed at leaving the door closed to situations that might be viewed as vague or unclear in connection with compatibility with international standards.” It indicates that the study started on the occasion of a friendly settlement agreement that was entered into in the petition “César Peralta and others” on same-sex marriage in Chile. It stated that the following was enshrined in the agreement: To ensure that the study of Supreme Decree 924 of September 12, 1983 of the Ministry of Education Governing Religious Education Classes in Schools shall lead to updating the Decree and shall take into consideration relevant aspects that guarantee non-discrimination in regard to teachers and students, bearing in mind the categories of protection defined in Law No. 20.609, which Establishes Measures against Discrimination. It is mentioned that the study of Supreme Decree 924 started the first semester of 2016. 17. Furthermore, the Chilean state pointed out that the entity that appoints or hires a teacher— in this case a public school—with which there is a strictly employment relationship must be differentiated from the religious authority that gives the authority to teach. As for the enabling authority, it asserted that loss of trust is sufficient motive or reason to revoke an appointment, as an essential element of the so-called “pastoral trust.” 18. It indicated that “the case that is submitted to the Commission is aimed at attributing to the State responsibility for an alleged failure to act (…) Nevertheless, the thin line separating the areas between the state and religion, makes it complicated to openly and decidedly single out the state as exclusively responsible for a violation of human rights based on discrimination for sexual orientation.” 19. The state stressed that the petitioning party never claimed she had had her right to freedom of conscience and religion breached, as a result of which the state cannot be accused of having an attitude contrary to the petitioner’s free exercise of religious faith. 20. Finally, it contended that, regarding the actions taken by state agents or public institutions, there are no objective elements leading one to think that there was a discriminatory treatment against the alleged victim because of her sexual orientation. III. DETERMINATIONS OF FACT A. RELEVANT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 21. Decree 924 of September 12, 1983 by Chile’s Ministry of Education “governs religious education classes in schools.” In its ninth article, this Decree establishes that: