199. Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits any discrimination, de facto or de jure not only in relation to the rights established in this treaty, but with regard to all the laws enacted by the State and their application.207 In other words, it does not simply repeat the provisions of Article 1(1) of this instrument with regard to the obligation of States to respect and ensure the rights recognized in this treaty without discrimination, but, additionally, establishes a right that also gives rise to the State’s obligation to respect and ensure the principle of equality and non-discrimination in order to safeguard other rights and in all domestic laws that it enacts,208 because it protects the right to “equal protection of the law,”209 so that it also prohibits discrimination resulting from any inequality derived from domestic law or its application.210 200. The Court has determined that a difference of treatment is discriminatory when is has no objective and reasonable justification;211 in other words, when it does not seek a legitimate purpose and when the means used are disproportionate to the purpose sought.212 201. In addition, the Court has established that States must abstain from carrying out actions that are in any way directly or indirectly designed to create situations of discrimination de jure o de facto.213 States are obliged to take affirmative action in order to reverse or change any discriminatory situations in their societies that prejudice a specific group of persons. This involves the special obligation of protection that the State must exercise with regard to the actions and practices of third parties who, with its tolerance or acquiescence, create, maintain or encourage discriminatory situations.214 202. Taking into account the interpretation criteria stipulated in Article 29 of the American Convention and in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Court considers that ethnic origin is a one of the prohibited criteria for discrimination that is included in the expression “any other social condition” of Article 1(1) of the American Convention. The Court has indicated that, when interpreting the content of this expression, “the rule most favorable to the protection of the rights recognized in this treaty must be chosen, based on the principle of or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms.” Cf. UN Doc. CCPR/C/37, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, Non-discrimination, 10 November 1989, para. 7. 207 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 186, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 82. 208 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, para. 186. 209 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984, para. 54, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 82. 210 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 82. 211 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 46; Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, para. 84, and Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, para. 185. 212 Cf. ECHR, Case of D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, No. 57325/00. Judgment of 13 November 2007, para. 196, and ECHR, Case of Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06. Judgment of 22 December 2009, para.42. 213 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, para. 103, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012 Series C No. 251, para. 236. 214 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, para. 104, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 236. The United Nations Human Rights Committee had stated this previously in its General Comment No. 18, Non-discrimination of 10 November 1989, CCPR/C/37, para. 10. 70