104 them, the State has the burden to prove the reasons and circumstances under which such restrictions were imposed, and if applicable, justify the criteria it used to allow the access of reporters of some media and deny the access of others. 378. As to the alleged violation of Article 24 of the Convention, the representatives pointed out the unequal and discriminatory treatment, inasmuch as the State has intended to separate and exclude certain media, as Globovisión, from the access to information in view of the content of the messages that such means expresses, broadcasts and pursues and its editorial line critical of the government The State, in addition, emphasized that such arguments are not contained in the Commission's application and that the representatives' brief should limit to the facts contained therein. The Court shall refer to the representatives’ argument insofar as it restricts the factual framework of this case. 379. This Court expressed that “[a]rticle 1(1) of the Convention, a rule general in scope which applies to all the provisions of the treaty, imposes on the States Parties the obligation to respect and guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein ‘without any discrimination. In other words, regardless of its origin or the form it may assume, any treatment that can be considered to be discriminatory with regard to the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is per se incompatible with that instrument”340. On the contrary, Article 24 of the Convention “prohibits all discriminatory treatment originating in a legal prescription”. The prohibition against discrimination so broadly proclaimed in Article 1(1) with regard to the rights and guarantees enumerated in the Convention thus extends to the domestic law of the States Parties, permitting the conclusion that in these provisions the States Parties, by acceding to the Convention, have undertaken to maintain their laws free of discriminatory regulations”341. 380. It is possible for a person to feel discriminated by the way other people think about its relation to a group or social sector, independently of whether such perception corresponds to reality or to the victim’s self-identification. Considering what has been established in the previous chapter (supra para. 360 to 362) it is possible that the people linked to Globovisión have been included in the category of "political opinions" contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention and for this reason, be subjected to discrimination in certain situations. As a result, the alleged discriminations of fact should be analyzed under the general non-discrimination obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention342, in connection with Article 13(1) therein. 381. The foregoing having been mentioned, this Tribunal shall limit the analysis to those facts in which it was not allowed to access to the information that is under the control of the State and to those facts that were alleged in the Commission’s application, according to the same terms mentioned therein. The incidents in which the news team of Globovisión could 340 Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of September 19, 1984, Series A Nº.14, para. 53. Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209. 341 Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of September 19, 1984, Series A Nº.14, para. 54. Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 209. 342 The difference between the two Articles lies in that if the State discriminates upon the enforcement of conventional rights containing no separate non-discrimination clause a violation of Article 1(1) and the substantial right involved would arise. If, on the contrary, discrimination refers to unequal protection by domestic law, a violation of Article 24 would occur. Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 209. Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 341 para. 53 and 54.