officials, they used physical violence against her and attacked her verbally with repeated references to her sexual orientation […] thus the police actions […] had been discriminatory.” B. Considerations of the Court 86. Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes that “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 87. The Court recalls that the obligation to respect the human rights recognized in the Convention comprises all those who act in the State’s name, especially if they are acting as state agents; therefore, any eventual violation they commit can be directly attributed to the State. It also notes that the obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of these rights means that the State is responsible for their violation by third parties if it has failed to adopt the measures required to prevent their violation or to make this cease, redressing the harm caused. And, all this with regard to any person who is subject to its jurisdiction for any reason, circumstance or motive. 88. The Court also notes that real respect for human rights means that their possible violation constitutes, per se, an internationally wrongful act, whatever the condition of the presumed victim, a circumstance that can never be alleged to justify this. Therefore, the arbitrary detention or the torture of a person, whatsoever their condition, is always contrary to international law and, especially, to international human rights law.117 89. Consequently, based on the above and owing to the obligation not to discriminate, States are also obliged to adopt positive measures to revert or change discriminatory situations that exist in their societies which affect a determined group of persons. This involves the special duty of protection that States must exercise with regard to the acts and practices of third parties who, with their tolerance or acquiescence, create, maintain or promote discriminatory situations.118 Thus, discrimination based on one of the categories indicated for illustrative purposes in Article 1(1) of the Convention warrants special or particular consideration because the respective offense occurs due to what the presumed victims represent or seem to represent and what distinguishes them from other people. 90. The Inter-American Court has recognized that LGBTI people have historically been victims of structural discrimination, stigmatization, and different forms of violence and violations of their fundamental rights.119 In this regard, it has established that the sexual orientation, gender identity Mutatis mutandis, Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 132. 117 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18, September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 104; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 241, para. 271; Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 201; Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 220; Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 80; Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 92; Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 110, and Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No.318, para. 336. Also, United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, Non-discrimination, November 10, 1989, CCPR/C/37, para. 5. 118 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, paras. 92 and 267, and Gender Identity, and Equality and Non-Discrimination with regard to Same-Sex Couples. State Obligations in relation to Change of Name, Gender Identity, and Rights deriving from a Relationship between Same-Sex Couples 119 24