institutions,” and v) that Ms. Atala “openly expressed her homosexuality” to Mr. Lillo and “defended her determination to openly communicate it to the Court’s officials and Senior Judges”256. 230. The Court finds that, although the disciplinary investigation began with legal grounds257 and did not end with any disciplinary sanctions against Ms. Atala for her sexual orientation, it did investigate this in an arbitrary manner, which constitutes interference with Ms. Atala’s right to privacy, and which extends to her professional sphere. Therefore, the State is responsible for violating the right to privacy, recognized in Article 11.2 in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo. D. Judicial guarantees 231. The Commission described the “content of the extraordinary visit ordered by the Court of Appeals of Temuco as an example of the lack of fairness and the discriminatory prejudice existing in the Chilean judicial power at the time of the custody trial.” It also argued that “the impact of this visit on the custody case with regard to prejudgment, since Judge Lenin Lillo ended up participating in the granting of the injunction on November 24, 2003”. 232. The representatives argued that “[w]hen a Court of Appeals of the State of Chile decides to begin a disciplinary proceeding against a judge and appoints a minister to conduct an extraordinary visit because her sexual orientation has been leaked [in the media], there is also a violation of impartiality, since the visit is a procedure that originates due to prejudice.” They also argued that the “violation of the right to be judged by an impartial court occurred from the moment that, on November 24, 2003, two judges who had issued a negative opinion regarding Judge Atala’s sexual orientation participated in granting the injunction.” In particular, the representatives stated that “Judges Lenin Lillo and Archibaldo Loyola were legally disqualified” from participating in granting the injunction issued against the lower-court ruling, since “the first [had] act[ed] as visiting judge in the context of the disciplinary investigation and the second had “directly urged [Ms.] Atala to renounce [custody of] her daughters.” 233. The State did not comment on the allegations regarding the extraordinary visit. At the same time it argued that “it is not accurate that the respective chamber of the Court of Appeals of Temuco […] included two Judges legally disqualified to act, given that since the grounds for disqualification were not invoked, it is understood that the party with the right to invoke it waived the exercise of their right.” Considerations of the Court 234. The Court reiterates that the personal impartiality of a judge is to be presumed, unless there is evidence to the contrary (supra para. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen 256 Report prepared by Judge Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco of April 2, 2003, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., page 5934. 257 See disciplinary standards (supra para. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). 70