77 is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5(2) and 5(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles. VIII.3 SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND THE OBLIGATION NOT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WOMEN, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS A) Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 215. The representatives affirmed that the State had violated the principle of nondiscrimination and equal protection of the law contained in Articles 24 and 1(1) of the American Convention, owing to the sexual violence to which Gladys Espinoza was subjected. According to them, “rape was a practice resulting from the application of the anti-terrorist laws in Peru, and had a specific content that discriminated against women based on their gender, [so that] the violations perpetrated against Gladys Carol [should] not be analyzed as isolated events, disconnected from the more general situation of discrimination.” They also asserted that “[t]he specific facts of this case, the legal system in force, and the context allow it to be affirmed that the system for investigating and prosecuting cases of terrorism and treason was characterized by discriminatory norms and practices that affected women unequally, based on their gender.” The Commission and the State did not refer specifically to this aspect. B) Considerations of the Court 216. Regarding the principles of equality before the law and non-discrimination, the Court has indicated that the concept of equality can be inferred directly from the unity of the nature of humankind and is inseparable from the essential dignity of the individual; thus, any situation is incompatible with this concept that, considering a specific group to be superior, treats it in a privileged way or, inversely, considering it inferior, treats it with hostility or, in any way, discriminates against it so that it cannot enjoy rights that are recognized to those who it does not consider included in that situation. 363 At the current stage of the evolution of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the realm of jus cogens. The whole juridical structure of national and international public order rests on it and it permeates the whole legal system. 364 217. In this regard, the Court has pointed out that, while the general obligation under Article 1(1) of the American Convention refers to the obligation of the State to respect and to ensure “without discrimination” the rights contained in this treaty, Article 24 protects the right to “equal protection of the law.” 365 Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits legal or factual discrimination, not only with regard to the rights established therein, but with regard to all the laws that the State enacts and their application. 366 In other words, it is not limited to reiterating the provisions of Article 1(1) of the Convention regarding the State’s obligation to respect and to 363 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 55, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 197. 364 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2013. Series A No. 18, para. 101, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 197. 365 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 Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 262. 366 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 Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 398.