by public authorities. 47 It also pointed out that “privacy is an ample concept that is not subject to exhaustive definitions and includes, among other protected realms, the sex life and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings. Thus, privacy includes the way in which the individual views himself and to what extent and how he decides to project this view to others. 48” 40. On the basis of the above, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that sexual orientation is part of the private life of persons and therefore it involves a sphere that cannot be subject to arbitrary interference. 49 In the case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, the Court ruled that the fact that a court gave importance to “sexual orientation as a reference,” entailed an exposure of private life. 50 41. Thus, in the analysis of concrete cases, both to analyze intrusions in private life and autonomy and to analyze differences in treatment, a judgment of proportionality has been used, consisting of the following scaled elements: i) legality of the restriction, that is if it was provided for in the law both formally and materially; ii) the existence of a legitimate purpose; iii) the suitability, that is, the determination of whether or not there is a logical relationship of causality between the means and the ends, as well as the distinction and end that is being sought; iv) the need, that is, the determination of whether or not there are less restrictive and equally suitable alternatives; and v) the proportionality in the strict sense, that is striking a balance between the interests at stake and the degree of sacrifice between them. 51 42. In dealing with differentiated treatment based on one of the categories forbidden by Article 1.1 of the Convention, such as sexual orientation, the Commission has pointed out that each one of these steps must be closely scrutinized, because it involves a suspect category that it is presumed to be unconventional, and that the state concerned must bear the burden of justifying its actions on the basis of compelling reasons. 52 Along the same line, the Court has indicated that “involving the prohibition of discrimination for one of the protected categories envisaged in Article 1.1 of the Convention, the eventual restriction of a right requires strong grounds, which implies that the reasons used by the state to implement the differentiation of treatment must be particularly serious and supported by thorough arguments. 53” 2. Considerations on the right of access to public service under conditions of equality and the right to work 43. The Court has indicated that Article 23.1(c) does not establish the right to access a public position, but to do so under “general conditions of equality.” This means that the respect and guarantee of this right are fulfilled when “the criteria and procedures for the appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal [are] reasonable and objective” and when “the people are not object of discrimination” in the exercise of this right. 54 Likewise, the Human Rights Committee has interpreted that the guarantee of protection covers both the access and the continuance under equal conditions and non-discrimination with regard to the suspension 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. Para. 161. 48 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. Para. 162. 49 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. Para. 165. 50 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. Para. 166. 51 I/A Court H.R., Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 273; and 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. Para. 146. 52 IACHR. Complaint filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of Karen Atala and daughters. Para. XX. 53 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. 106. Quoting. Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, para. 257. Likewise, mutatis mutandi, Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, para. 124, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 228. 54 I/A Court H.R. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197. Para. 138. Quoting. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 25: Participation in Public Affairs and the Right to Vote, CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 7, 12 July 1996, para. 23. 47