95. In the case at hand, it is alleged that discriminatory treatment occurred with respect to two different facts in the custody process: the Judgment issued in the remedy of complaint and the ruling on temporary custody. To determine whether there is a causal or decisive link between the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile and the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, and the sexual orientation of Ms. Atala, it is necessary to analyze the arguments presented by the national judicial authorities, their actions, the language used, and the context in which the judicial decisions were made, in order to determine whether the difference in treatment was based on sexual orientation.116 In this regard, in the Case of Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, the European Court concluded that the domestic court, in considering the father’s cohabitation with another man as such, made the petitioner’s sexual orientation a decisive factor in the final judgment. 96. Regarding the context of the custody proceeding, the Court notes out that the custody claim was filed under the supposition that Ms. Atala “[was] not capable of looking after and taking care of [the three girls, given that] her new choice of sexual life together with her lesbian relationship with another woman, [were] having […] harmful consequences on the development of these minors, since the mother ha[d] shown no interest whatsoever in looking after and protecting […] the overall development of these girls.”117 Therefore, in addition to other considerations, the custody process revolved around Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation and the alleged effects that her living with her partner could have on the three girls. Therefore, this consideration was central to the discussion between the parties and in the main judicial decisions made during the proceeding (supra paras. 41 and 56). 97. Specifically, the Court finds that the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile invoked the following reasons as grounds for the judgment: i) the “deterioration in the social, family, and educational environment of the girls since the mother began to cohabit with her homosexual partner” and the “effects that this cohabitation could have on the’ psychological and emotional well-being of the daughters;” ii) the alleged “risk for the integral development of the girls from which they must be protected” due to “the potential confusion over sexual roles that could be caused in them by the absence from the home of a male father and his replacement by another person of the female gender;” iii) the alleged existence of “a situation of risk” that places them in a “vulnerable position in their social environment,” due to the risk of social discrimination, iv) that Ms. Atala had allegedly put “her own interests before those of her daughters when she chose to express her homosexual status” 118. These arguments and the language used show a link between the judgment and the fact that Ms. Atala lived with a partner of the same sex, which indicates that the Supreme Court gave significant importance to Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation. 98. Regarding the provisional custody ruling, the Court finds verifies that the Juvenile Court of Villarrica119 used the following arguments: i) that Ms. Atala allegedly put her own 116 Cf. ECHR, Case of Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., paras. 28 and 31 and Case of E.B., supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 85. 117 Custody claim filed before the Juvenile Court of Villarica of January, 14, 2003 (record of appendices to the claim, volume V, appendix 1, page 2500). 118 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004 (record of appendices to the petition, volume V, pages 2669 to 2677). 119 The Court indicated that “as stated in Article 225 of the Civil Code, if parents live separately, the mother will see to the personal care of the children, and in any case, when the interest of the child makes it necessary, either due to abuse, lack of care, or any other aggravated cause, the Judge may hand over the personal care of the children to the other parent.” It added that “the Judge is given the hard judicial task of deciding which of the parents is most suitable to make effective the Right to Custody of the minors, for which it must turn to objective 35