35. The Inter-American Court has pointed out that the notion of equality stems directly from the unity of humankind and is inseparable from the essential dignity of the person, in response to which the latter is incompatible with any situation that might lead to treating a given group deemed to be superior with privilege or, inversely, treating a group deemed inferior with hostility or in any way that might discriminate its enjoyment of the rights that are effectively recognized to those who do not consider themselves subject to said situation. The Court’s case law has indicated that, in the current stage of evolution of international law, the basic principle of equality and non-discrimination has been included under the principle of jus cogens. It is on this principle that the legal scaffolding of national and international public order is built, and it permeates the entire legal structure. 41 36. The principle of equality and non-discrimination must be understood in the sense of incorporating two conceptions: “(…) a negative conception related to the prohibition of arbitrary differences in treatment and a positive conception related to the obligation of states to create conditions of real equality with respect to groups who have been historically excluded or who are at a greater risk of being discriminated against.” 42 37. Regarding the first conception, which is the relevant one in the present case, dating back to early case law in the matter, the Inter-American Court pointed out that not all differentiated treatment is discriminatory and that is necessary to establish if it is objectively and reasonably justified. 43 This analysis is especially strict when it involves a difference in treatment based on one of the categories forbidden by Article 1.1 of the Convention. 38. As for sexual orientation, since the case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, and in subsequent cases, the Inter-American Court established, in Article 1.1 of the Convention, what was understood by “any other social condition.” 44 In the words of the Court: The Inter-American court has already established that the sexual orientation and gender identity of persons is a category protected by the Convention. Therefore, any regulation, act, or practice considered discriminatory based on a person’s sexual orientation is prohibited. Consequently, no domestic regulation, decision, or practice, whether by state authorities or individuals, may diminish or restrict, in any way whatsoever, the rights of a person based on his or her sexual orientation. 45 In that respect, the inter-American instrument prohibits discrimination in general, including categories such as sexual orientation, which cannot serve as the grounds for denying or restricting any of the rights set forth in the Convention. The above would be contrary to what is established in Article 1.1 of the American Convention. 46 39. Regarding the right to privacy and autonomy, the Court has pointed out that Article 11 of the Convention prohibits all arbitrary or abusive interference in a person’s private life, setting forth various spheres of the latter such as the private life of their families. In that respect, the Court has contended that the realm of privacy is exempt and immune from abusive and arbitrary intrusion or aggression by third parties or I/A Court H.R. Case Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315. Para. 109. 42 I/A Court H.R. Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246. Para. 267. 43 I/A Court H.R. Proposal to amend the Political Constitution of Costa Rica relative to naturalization. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4. Paras. 55 and 56. 44 I/A Court H.R. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239. Paras. 91 and 93. 45 I/A Court H.R. Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310. Para. 104. 46 I/A Court H.R. Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310. Para. 105. 41