26. According to the petitioners, the ruling of the Supreme Court is notable for the fact that it centered exclusively on Ms. Karen Atala's sexual orientation, and not on other grounds of legal incapacity to revoke custody of her children, which contravened the principle of equality before the law inasmuch as it constituted a discriminatory application of the substantive rules on custody. The petitioner argues that homosexuality cannot be considered a just cause for declaring her unfit as a mother unless it can be conclusively proven that it harms her daughters, which the Court has not done. According to the petitioners, the Supreme Court reduces the best interests of the girls to living in a traditional, heterosexual, "normally structured" environment. 17 27. The petitioners also hold that these arguments of the Chilean Supreme Court are similar to the arguments used by the Court of Appeals of Lisbon, which was challenged before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal. 18 In that connection they note that the European Court found against the State based on the fact that the homosexuality of the complainant was a decisive factor in the final ruling to revoke custody and it considered that there was a lack of proportionality between the means employed and the aims pursued. Consequently, it found violations of Articles 8 (respect for private and family life) and 14 (non discrimination on any ground such as sex or other status). 28. The petitioners also allege that the State of Chile interfered arbitrarily and abusively in Ms. Atala’s family and private life in view of the fact that there were less invasive measures, such as a very ample framework of communication with their father, which the Supreme Court did not consider but, rather, opted for the most restrictive measure, namely complete separation of the girls from their mother. They assert that the ruling of the Supreme Court interfered with her private life because it forced Ms. Atala unnecessarily and arbitrarily to choose between the exercise of her sexual orientation and keeping custody of her daughters. 29. The petitioners also allege that the decision of the Court violates the mental and moral integrity of Ms. Atala since based on an abstract and stereotypical conception of homosexuality, the Supreme Court excludes homosexual people from one of the most meaningful aspects of the human experience: raising their children. The stereotype with respect to homosexuality, which, according to the petition, is perpetuated by the Supreme Court, consists of the belief that homosexuals are against family values, reject traditional family lifestyles, live selfishly centered on the relationship with the partner, and are unable to develop other affective ties. 30. The petitioners allege that rather than to protect the best interests of the girls, the decision of the Supreme Court failed to give due consideration to their express desire to stay with their mother, based on their age and maturity. Instead, the decision encouraged the stigmatization and humiliation of the girls in the press. The petitioner provides a psychiatric report that confirms the effects of the girls’ separation from their mother. The girls described the separation as "traumatic, abrupt, and unexpected… as they had expressed their desire to stay with the mother" and that they felt “anger at not having been heard in the lawsuit because they felt that the decision of the judges had made a mockery of them.” 19 31. The petitioners sustain that since the final judgment that separated Ms. Karen Atala from her daughters, the petitioner’s family relationship has absolutely deteriorated. Ms. Atala is unable to under the protection and responsibility of his parents; save in exceptional, judicially-recognized circumstances, a child of young age ought not to be separated from his mother...”.Communication from the petitioners of November 24, 2004. 17 In its judgment, the Supreme Court found, “The appealed judges, having determined that is not so (…) and having relegated the special right of the children to live and evolve in the bosom of a normally structured and socially appreciated family, in the proper, traditional mold, have committed a serious breach or abuse which must be corrected through the admission of the instant disciplinary action.”Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004, par. 20. 18 Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, n˚33290/96, 21 December 1999. Communication from the petitioners of November 24, 2004. 19 IACHR, Hearing, Case 12.502, Karen Atala and Daughters, 124th Regular Session, March 7, 2006. 7