¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.), for which reason these points shall be examined jointly. 114. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to consider whether these arguments were appropriate to fulfill the purpose stated in the Supreme Court’s judgment and in the decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarica, namely, to protect the best interest of the three girls. 4.1. Alleged social discrimination 115. The Court notes that among the statements taken during in the proceedings, one of the witnesses stated that “there has been discrimination against the little girls, not by other children, but by the parents, who repress the children; I do not have proof of specific acts of discrimination, but an example given was that if there was a slumber party at Karen’s house they would not allow their daughters to go.”133 In addition, some of the witnesses indicated that: “the girls are going to be discriminated against and affected in their social relationships;”134 ii) “in the school environment and among their peers […] they are being pointed out, I am concerned that because we live in such a small city this situation could be difficult”135, and iii) “the parents of their schoolmates and friends adopt protective attitudes towards their children regarding this situation, which they consider contradictory to the education they give their children and this must necessarily generate negative situations and isolation for the little girls which, according to what I have heard, is unfortunately happening.”136 116. Likewise, the social worker who testified at the proceeding indicated that “in Chile according to a study […] on tolerance and discrimination [conducted in] 1997, it was found that Chileans express a high level of rejection toward homosexual minorities [,] with the percentage of rejection being 60.2%. Based on this, and aware of the high [level of] discrimination [,] these minors would be exposed to unwarranted situations of social discrimination”137. 117. On the other hand, the Court notes that the custody case file contains eight affidavits from parents of schoolmates and friends of the three girls in which they testify, inter alia, that “they have never discriminated against [Ms. Atala’s] daughters in any way and that their children got together, played and participated in activities with the López Atala girls138. 118. In this regard, the Court confirms that although the case file contained evidence from individuals who stated that the girls could be suffering discrimination within their social environment due to their mother cohabiting with a partner of the same sex, there is also evidence to the contrary regarding to this point (supra paras. 115, 116 and 117). However, the Court notes that the Supreme Court described the potential social discrimination that the girls might suffer in a manner that was conditional and abstract, since it stated that: i) “the girls could be subjected to social discrimination,” and ii) that “clearly their unique 133 Testimony of April 10 2003 (record of appendices to the petition, volume I, page 360). 134 Testimony of April 3, 2003 (record of appendices to the petition, volume I, page 327). 135 Testimony of April 3, 2003 (record of appendices to the petition, volume I, page 328). 136 Testimony of April 3, 2003 (record of appendices to the petition, volume I, page 329). 137 Testimony of the social worker of April 14, 2003 (record of appendices to the petition, volume I, page 390). 138 Affidavits of May 2003 (record of appendices to the petition, volume I, pages 458 through 464).´ 40