21. The Court deemed the girls to be in a “situation of risk” that placed them in a “vulnerable position in their social environment, since clearly their unique family environment differs significantly from that of their school companions and acquaintances in the neighborhood where they live, exposing them to ostracism and discrimination, which would also affect their personal development”. 11 The minority dissenting judges of the Supreme Court determined, by contrast, that "the opinions contained in the record, both from psychologists and from social workers, infer that the mother’s homosexuality does not harm the rights of the girls.” 12 22. As regards due process, the petitioners alleged with respect to the disciplinary action (recurso de queja), a purely disciplinary remedy designed to correct serious faults or abuses committed in judicial decisions, that the Supreme Court applied it erroneously to settle factual and legal issues raised in the lawsuit. Thus, it opened a third judicial instance that does not exist in the Chilean procedural system. The petitioners also draw attention to the fact that the disciplinary action carries administrative penalties for judges, which affects their internal independence. 23. The petitioners also allege that while the custody suit was in progress, on March 7, 2003, the Plenary of the Court of Appeals in Temuco appointed Judge Lenin Lillo to conduct a special visit to the Criminal Court in Villarrica where Ms. Atala was serving as a judge, 13 in order to discreetly inquire about the facts concerning her private life that had become public knowledge. The petitioner claims that the report prepared by the judge and accepted by the Court of Appeals in Temuco, violated her right to privacy because it determined that the reputation of the legal profession and the sexual orientation of the victim were incompatible. 14 The Court of Temuco decided not to press disciplinary charges against Ms. Atala, in spite of the fact that the inspecting judge recommended that it did so. 24. The petitioners sustain that two judges who were ineligible to issue a ruling on her and were not impartial voted on the injunction granted by the Court of Appeals in Temuco on November 24, 2003. One was Judge Lenin Lillo, who had participated in the inquiry ordered by the Court of Appeals of Temuco into Ms. Atala’s private life, and the other, Judge Loyola López, had previously urged Judge Atala to relinquish her children and expressed disagreement with Ms. Atala’s personal and family decisions. Ms. Atala filed a disciplinary complaint against these two judges, which the Supreme Court of Justice decided on July 2, 2004, ruling by a majority vote that the judges had committed no fault or abuse. 25. The petitioner affirms that the custody regime for children of separated parents is governed in Chile by Articles 225, 226, and 227 of the Civil Code. 15 For its part, Article 225 stipulates that, “If the parents live separately, the mother shall see to the personal care of the children ….. Be that as it may, when necessary to protect the interests of the child, whether because of mistreatment, neglect, or another just cause, the judge transfer the care of the child to the other parent…” Said article was reportedly the subject of an extensive parliamentary review whose purpose was to protect the best interests of the child, underscore the fact that the personal care of the children corresponds to the mother, and limit the grounds on which the mother may be deprived of custody. 16 11 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004, par. 18, submitted by the petitioners in their communication of November 24, 2004. 12 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004, par. 9, dissenting vote of judges José Benquis C. and Orlando Álvarez H, , submitted by the petitioners in their communication of November 24, 2004. 13 The Organic Code of the Courts provides that appellate court judges are responsible for the managerial, correctional and economic supervision of the tribunals under their jurisdiction, exercised through regular and special visits. Communication from the petitioners of November 24, 2004. 14 Report prepared by Minister Lenin, Lillo Hunzinker, Appeals Court of Temuco, April 2, 2003. 15 These articles apply with respect to Articles 242 of the Code and 42 of Law 16.618. Communication from the petitioners of November 24, 2004. 16 The petitioner also alleges that the need for small children to stay with their mother has been recognized by many countries in the Americas in the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), Article 16 of which provides, “Every child has the right to grow 6