24, in conjunction with Articles 19 and 1.1 of the American Convention, was violated in detriment of the girls M., V., and R. D. Right to private life and right to family life Arguments of the parties 156. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 11175 of the American Convention, the Commission argued that “the right to a private life encompasses all spheres of the intimate realm and autonomy of an individual, including his or her personality, identity, decisions over his or her sexual life, personal and family relations[, given that] sexual orientation constitutes a fundamental component of an individual’s private life.” It held that “the State’s interference in the private life of Karen Atala was arbitrary, since the custody decision was based on discriminatory prejudices driven by her sexual orientation [….] and it also arbitrarily interfered in her autonomy to make decisions on her personal life based on said orientation. The latter […since] in the absence of objective reasons, the Supreme Court of Justice, based on the expression of her sexual orientation, deprived her of the custody of her daughters and a life in common with them, a fundamental aspect of her life plan.” 157. For their part, the representatives argued that “the interference is arbitrary because the only justification is the expression of the mother’s sexual orientation, which is part of her personal identity, an essential characteristic of all individuals, which has no bearing whatsoever on the daughters’ well-being.” The representatives pointed out that “there is no question that both [Ms.] Atala and her daughters suffered arbitrary interference in their private life.” 158. Furthermore, in relation to Articles 11.2 and 17176 of the American Convention, the Commission and the representatives alleged “unlawful and arbitrary interference in the right to private and family life, which extends to the development of relationships between members of a family and the role of emotional relationships in the life project of each member.” The representatives pointed out that “there is no single concept of family” and that “[Ms.] Atala, her daughters and [Ms.] De Ramón undoubtedly constituted a family unit which was broken up by decisions based on prejudice against Judge Atala’s expression of her sexual orientation.” 159. The State argued that “in a custody trial, whose purpose is to consider which parent shall take charge of the personal care of the children, the judge not only has the power but also the obligation to assess each and every one of the specific conditions and circumstances that determine the child’s best interest. [...] It is therefore inherent to the custody trial […] that the judge may, according to law, investigate intimate details of the life of the persons. It argued “that the pursuit of the child’s best interest must prevail over an 175 Article 11 of the Convention states that: 1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. 3. 176 Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. In this regard, Article 17 of the Convention states: 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 51