interpretation may be flexible and the language of human rights acknowledges their progressive development, the States gave their consent to a notion of human rights that had certain types of violations in mind, and not others that did not exist at the time. If it should be necessary to extend the scope of the agreement to include matters on which there is not a minimum consensus, the [American Convention] itself establishes a procedure for incorporating protocols that protect other rights.” 75. Likewise, the State pointed out that “sexual orientation was not a suspect category on which there was consensus in 2004,” when the Supreme Court issued its judgment in the present case. It argued that “it would not be appropriate to demand [that the Supreme Court of Chile] pass a strict scrutiny test for a category on which the Inter-American consensus is recent.” It added that “the establishment of a “suspect super-category”, as the sexual orientation of one of the parents would be in this case, and other similar ones, may end up shifting the focus of a family law trial into a matter that gives priority to consideration of the parents’ rights, to the detriment of the child’s best interest in the specific case.” 76. Finally, the State argued that “having declared the mother legally competent, the decision to accept the custody petition filed by the father and based on the girls’ best interest and well-being is not arbitrary.” It also indicated that “it is not true that the grounds for these decisions were based on the mother’s sexual orientation or on its mere expression” and that “the [mother’s] sexual orientation was considered, among other factors, to the extent that its expression had specific adverse effects on the girls´ best interest. Considerations of the Court 77. To resolve these controversies, the Court will examine 1) the scope of the right to equality and non-discrimination; 2) sexual orientation as a category protected by Article 1.1 of the American Convention; 3) whether in this case there was a difference in treatment based on sexual orientation; 4) whether said difference in treatment constitutes discrimination, for which purpose the Court will strictly assess the reasons given to justify said difference in treatment, taking into consideration the children’s best interest and the alleged risk and damage to the girls. 1. Right to equality and non-discrimination 78. The Court has established that Article 1(1) of the Convention is a regulation of a general nature, whose content extends to all the provisions of the treaty and it establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect and guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights and freedoms acknowledged therein “without any discrimination”. That is to say, whatever the origin or form it assumes, any treatment that may be considered 27