human rights principles. 48 They also contend that the Court's ruling has a disproportionate and limiting impact on the exercise of rights by homosexual parents, by promoting that they never retain custody of their children due to stereotypical conceptions of their ability to care and create a healthy family environment for them. 64. The Commission also finds that the allegations could constitute violations of the right to privacy and the rights of the family of the victims protected, respectively, by Articles 11(2) and 17(1) of the American Convention. The petitioners claim that the State allegedly interfered in an arbitrary and abusive manner in the private and family life of Ms. Karen Atala and her daughters when it revoked custody purely out of discriminatory prejudice based on Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation. They also argue that the separation measure adopted by the Supreme Court was neither reasonable nor proportional because it could have adopted other measures that were less invasive on the victims’ private and family life. 65. The Inter-American Commission will also examine arguments with respect to Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention in connection with the claims of the petitioners regarding alleged violations of due-process guarantees during the custody trial. The petitioners allege, in particular, that the Supreme Court, through a disciplinary action (recurso de queja), which is a remedy of a purely disciplinary nature designed to correct faults or abuses committed in judicial decisions, opened a third judicial instance that does not exist in the Chilean criminal procedure. The petitioners argue that the Court issued an unjustified decision on the merits of the matter and unduly interfered in the principle of judicial independence. 66. The allegations of the petitioners, if found to be true, could also constitute violations of the rights of the girls protected by Articles 19 and 17(4) of the American Convention inasmuch as they sustain that the Supreme Court did not give consideration to the desire of the girls to stay with their mother, which the lower courts did. Additionally, pursuant to the rules on interpretation set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights, 49 as well as the criteria established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with respect to the tendency to integrate the regional and universal systems for the protection of human rights, 50 and as regards to the notion of corpus juris for the protection of the child, 51 the Commission decides that it will interpret the scope and content of the rights of the American Convention allegedly violated to the detriment of M., V. and R. in light of the provisions contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 52 67. In response to the allegations of the petitioners, the State sustains that the facts alleged do not constitute violations of the American Convention and that the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice was based on the best interests of the children. The IACHR will review the allegations of 48 See European Court of Human Rights, Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, 33290/96, 21 December 1999 (in which the Court decided that a difference in treatment between parents in a custody trial based on the sexual orientation of one of them constituted a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in relation to article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; European Court of Human Rights, E.B. v. France, 43546/02, 22 January 2008 (in which the Court decided that a difference in treatment on the basis of sexual orientation in adoption cases violates Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in relation to Article 8 of said instrument). 49 Article 29 (Restrictions regarding Interpretation) provides, "No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: (…) b) restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party; (…)”. 50 I/A Court H.R., "Other Treaties" Subject to the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 1, para. 41. 51 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 194; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112., para. 148; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, par. 166; I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paras. 24, 37 and 53. 52 This Convention was adopted on November 20, 1989, and entered into force on September 2, 1990. Chile ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child on September 12, 1990. 14