and case law. At the current stage of the evolution of international law, the basic principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the domain of jus cogens. The juridical structure of national and international public order is based on this principle, and it permeates the whole legal system.284 226. Nevertheless, referring to Articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention, the Court has indicated that “the difference between the two articles is that the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) refers to the State’s obligation to respect and ensure ‘without discrimination’ the rights contained in the American Convention. [I]n other words, if a State discriminates in the respect or guarantee of a treaty-based right, it would violate Article 1(1) and the substantial right in question. If, on the contrary, the discrimination refers to unequal protection by domestic law, it would violate Article 24.”285 227. In this case, since the parties did not demonstrate unequal protection of domestic law, the Court will not rule on Article 24 of the Convention. Similarly, the Court observes that the arguments relating to Article 3 of the Convention do not strictly correspond to the Court’s case law in relation to the right to juridical personality,286 but rather to the analysis  Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 to 16);  Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief (Articles 2 and 4);  Declaration of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up (2.d);  Convention No. 97 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) concerning Migrant Workers (revised) (Article 6);  Convention No. 111 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation (Articles 1 to 3);  Convention No. 143 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) concerning Migrant Workers (supplementary provisions) (Articles 8 and 10);  Convention No. 168 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) concerning Employment Promotion and Protection (Article 6);  Proclamation of Teheran. International Conference on Human Rights, Teheran, 13 May 1968 (paras. 1, 2, 5, 8 and 11);  Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 14 to 25 June 1993 (I.15; I.19; I.27; I.30; II.B.1, Articles 19 to 24; II.B.2, Articles 25 to 27);  Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, (Articles 2, 3, 4.1 and 5);  World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Declaration and Programme of Action (Declaration: paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 16, 25, 38, 47, 48, 51, 66 and 104);  Convention against Discrimination in Education (Articles 1, 3 and 4);  Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9);  Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the Country in which they live (Article 5.1.b and 5.1.c );  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 20 and 21);  European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 14);  European Social Charter (Article 19.4, 19.5 and 19.7);  Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 1);  African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“Charter of Banjul”) (Articles 2 and 3);  Arab Charter on Human Rights (Article 2), and  Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (Article 1). 284 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 101, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 79. 285 Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, supra, paras. 53 and 54, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra, para. 272. 286 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 188; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. 61