A. Proven facts in relation to the custody proceedings 30. On March 29, 1993, Ms. Atala married Ricardo Jaime López Allendes34. Her daughters, M., V., and R. were born in 1994, 1998, and 1999, respectively35. Ms. Atala has an older son, Sergio Vera Atala, who was born of a previous marriage. In March 2002, Ms. Atala and Mr. López Allendes decided to end their marriage through a de facto separation. As part of the dissolution of their marriage, they established by mutual consent that Ms. Atala would maintain the care and custody of the three girls in the city of Villarica, with weekly visits to the home of their father in Temuco36. In November 2002, Ms. Emma de Ramón, the partner of Ms. Atala, began living in the same house with Ms. Atala, her three daughters and her eldest son37. 1) Custody proceedings38 31. On January 14, 2003, the father of the three girls filed a custody suit with the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, considering that “the physical and emotional development [of the girls] was seriously at risk” should they continue to live in the care of their mother. In the suit, Mr. López argued that Ms. Atala “[was] not capable of watching over and caring for [the three girls, given that] her new sexual lifestyle choice, together with her cohabiting in a lesbian relationship with another woman, [were] producing […] harmful consequences for the development of these minors …” since the mother [had] not shown any concern for caring and protecting [...] the development of the girl[s]." In addition, Mr. López argued that “[to] treat as normal, within the legal order, partners of the same sex [leads] to distort the meaning of a human couple, man and woman, and therefore, alters the natural meaning of the family, [...] since it affects the fundamental values of the family, as the core unit of society”; therefore, the “sexual choice made by the mother w[ould] disrupt the healthy, fair and normal coexistence to which [M., V. and R.] have a right.” Finally, Mr. López argued that “[i]t would be necessary to take into account all the consequences of a biological nature that would be implied for minors living with a lesbian couple [;] in fact, solely in terms of diseases, given the sexual practices of a lesbian couple, the girls are [would be] 34 Cf. Marriage certificate of September 22, 2011 (case record, volume XII, page 5926). 35 Cf. Psychological Reports on M., V., and R., of November 15, 2002 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, appendix 23, pages 2680, 2683 and 2686). 36 Cf. Decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of October 29, 2003 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, appendix 12, page 2581). 37 In this regard, the Juvenile Court of Villarrica established that “in June 2002 [Ms. Atala] began a relationship with [Ms.] Emma of Ramón[,] who since November 2002 work [ed] as the coordinator of the regional archive of Araucanía in the town of Temuco [and therefore, move[d] into the common home and join [ed] the nuclear family.” Judgment of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica on October 29, 2003 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, appendix 12, page 2582). 38 The system for the custody of minors in Chile is governed by article 225 of the Civil Code, which provides that: “If the parents live separately, the mother shall see to the personal care of the children. Nonetheless, through a public document, or document issued before any official of the Civil Registry, with an entry on the margin of the child’s birth record within thirty days of the granting thereof, both parties may, by mutual agreement, determine that the personal care of one or more children falls to the father. This agreement may be revoked, following the same formalities. Be that as it may, when necessary to protect the interests of the child, whether because of mistreatment, neglect, or another just cause, the judge may transfer the care of the child to the other parent But it would not entrust the personal care of the child to a parent who had not contributed, while she or he could, to the upkeep of the child while the child was in the custody of the other parent. As long as an amendment related to the personal care is not annulled by a subsequent one, any agreement or resolution is unenforceable to third parties.” Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, page 2671) 14