Sebastián’s most critical period.”424 265. For all the aforementioned reasons, the Court considers that the disintegration of the family unit has been proven, together with the suffering endured by all the family members as a consequence of the delays in the civil trial, the manner in which the judgment was executed and the other problems that Sebastián Furlan faced in trying to obtain adequate rehabilitation. Accordingly, the Court considers that the Argentine State incurred in a violation of the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5 and of the right to access to justice established in Articles 8(1) and 25, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Danilo Furlan, Susana Fernández, Claudio Erwin Furlan and Sabina Eva Furlan. G) General conclusion on access to justice, the principle of non-discrimination and the right to personal integrity of Sebastián Furlan 266. The State argued that although “the petitioners mention [ed] the international standards in the sphere of non-discrimination and protection of children and of persons with disabilities and alleg[ed] that the Argentine State had violated the right to special protection” of Sebastián Furlan, they did not give any indication as to “the manner in which it had committed the violation of said right.” The State held that the arguments of the alleged victims contained many generalizations and that these same arguments “were used as basis for claiming other rights that, according to them, the Argentine State had violated". 267. In this regard, the Court considers that the right to equality before the law and nondiscrimination is comprised of two concepts: a negative concept related to the prohibition of arbitrary differentiation of treatment425, and an affirmative concept related to the obligation of States Party to create real equal conditions towards groups who have been historically excluded or who are exposed to a greater risk of being discriminated.426 Likewise, the Court recalls that the rights to physical, mental and moral integrity embodied in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, “requires not only that the State respect these (negative obligation) but also that the State adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve them (positive obligation), in compliance with the State’s general obligation under Article 1(1) of the American Convention. ”427 268. In the instant case, the Court emphasizes that minors and persons with disabilities must enjoy effective access to justice and benefit from a due legal process on an equal footing with those who do not face such disadvantages. To accomplish its objectives, the judicial process must recognize and correct any real factors of inequality facing those who are brought before the courts. The presence of conditions of inequality requires compensatory measures to help reduce or eliminate the obstacles and deficiencies that 424 Affidavit rendered by Danilo Furlan (Merits file, page 689). 425 Cf. United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, General Comment N° 18, Non-Discrimination, 10/11/89, CCPR/C/37, para. 7; Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, para. 92. 426 Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, para 44; Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, para. 88; Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 185, and Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 170. 427 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 158, and Case of the Brothers los Gómez Paquiyauri v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 129. 84