historical and structural discrimination that these minorities have suffered114. The fact that this is a controversial issue in some sectors and countries, and that it is not necessarily a matter of consensus, cannot lead this Court to abstain from issuing a decision, since in doing so it must refer solely and exclusively to the stipulations of the international obligations arising from a sovereign decision by the States to adhere to the American Convention. 93. A right granted to all persons cannot be denied or restricted under any circumstances based on their sexual orientation. This would violate Article 1.1 of the American Convention. This inter-American instrument proscribes discrimination, in general, including categories such as sexual orientation, which cannot be used as grounds for denying or restricting any of the rights established in the Convention. 3. Difference in treatment based on sexual orientation 94. The Court notes that in order to prove that a distinction in treatment has occurred in a particular decision, it is not necessary that the decision in its entirety be based “fundamentally and solely” on the person’s sexual orientation. It is sufficient to confirm that, to a certain extent, the person’s sexual orientation was taken into account, either explicitly or implicitly, in adopting a specific decision.115 114 According to different international and comparative law sources, this discrimination against the Lesbian, Gay, Transsexual, Bisexual, and Intersexual (hereinafter “LGTBI”) is unacceptable because i) sexual orientation constitutes an essential aspect of a person’s identity (infra para. 139). Likewise, ii) the LGTBI community has been historically discriminated against and the use of stereotypes in treatment towards said community is common. Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of all persons to enjoy the highest level possible of physical and mental health, E/CN.4/2004/49, February 16, 2004, para.33 (“discrimination and stigmatization continue to represent a grave threat against the sexual and reproductive health of many groups, such as […] sexual minorities,”.); Report of the Special Rapporteur on matters of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatments, E/CN.4/2004/56, December 23, 2003, para. 64 (“The attitudes and beliefs derived from myths and fears related to HIV/AIDS and sexuality contribute to stigmatization and discrimination against sexual minorities. Moreover, the perception that members of these minorities do not respect sexual barriers or question the predominant concepts of the role attributed to each gender seems to contribute to their vulnerability to torture as a form of “punishing” their unaccepted behavior”). On the other hand, iii) they constitute a minority that faces greater difficulty in removing discrimination in areas such as the legislative sphere, as well as avoiding negative repercussions in the interpretation of regulations by officials of the executive or legislative branches and in access to justice. Cf. Special Rapporteur on the independence of senior judges and attorneys, Civil and political rights, especially matters related to: independence of the judiciary, the administration of justice, impunity, Mission to Brazil, E/CN.4/2005/60/Add.3, February 22, 2005, para. 28 (“Transvestites, transsexuals, and homosexuals are also frequently the victims of episodes of violence and discrimination. When they turn to the judicial system, they frequently face the same prejudice and stereotypes of society reproduced there”); Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-481 of September 9, 1998, Juridical Grounds, para. 24 (considering that homosexuals constitute one of the minority groups traditionally discriminated). Finally, iv) sexual orientation does not constitute a rational criterion for the rational and equal distribution or sharing of properties, rights, or social burdens. Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-481 of September 9, 1998, para. 25. In this judgment, regarding the right of a public school to not be fired due to his homosexual condition, the Colombian Court stated that the separation of the professor from his work was based “on a prejudice without any empirical support whatsoever, which denotes the unfair stigmatization that has affected this population and that has been invoked to impose burdens upon them or deprive them of rights, in detriment of their possibilities to participate in realms that are so relevant for both social and economic life.” (para. 29) On its part, judgment C-507 of 1999 declared unconstitutional a provision that declared homosexuality in the armed forces a disciplinary infraction. In judgment C-373 of 2002 the Court declared unconstitutional a provision that established as a cause for disqualification to exercise the position of notary having been punished at a disciplinary level for the infraction of homosexuality. 115 Cf. ECHR, Case of E.B. v. France, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., paras. 88 and 89 “notwithstanding the precautions taken by the Nancy Administrative Court of Appeal, and subsequently by the Conseil d'Etat, to justify taking account of the applicant's “lifestyle”, the inescapable conclusion is that her sexual orientation was consistently at the center of deliberations in her regard and omnipresent at every stage of the administrative and judicial proceedings. […] The Court considers that the reference to the applicant's homosexuality was, if not explicit, at least implicit. The influence of the applicant's avowed homosexuality on the assessment of her application has been established and, having regard to the foregoing, was a decisive factor leading to the decision to refuse her authorization to adopt”) 34