compatible with the American Convention because they are reasonable and objective, while the latter constitute arbitrary differences that result in harm to human rights. In the instant case, the effects of the ruling on unconstitutionality are related to the protection of the right to private and family life, and the right to found a family, and not to the application or interpretation of a specific domestic law that regulates IVF. Consequently, the Court will not analyze the presumed violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination under Article 24, 439 but rather in light of Article 1(1) 440 of the Convention in relation to Articles 11(2) and 17 thereof. 441 286. The Court has indicated that the principle of the peremptory right to equal and effective protection of the law and non-discrimination means that the States must abstain from producing discriminatory regulations or those with discriminatory effects on the different groups of the population when exercising their rights. 442 The Human Rights Committee, 443 the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 444 the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 445 and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 446 have all recognized the concept of indirect discrimination. This concept implies that a law or practice that appears to be neutral has particularly negative repercussions on a person or group with specific characteristics. 447 It is possible that exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms”; Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, Non-discrimination, 10 November 1989, CCPR/C/37, para. 7; ICourtHR, Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 92; 439 Article 24 of the Convention (Right to Equal Protection) stipulates than: All persons are equal before the law. equal protection of the law. 440 Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to Article 1(1) of the American Convention (Obligation to Respect Rights) establishes that: The 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.. 441 The Court has indicated that if a State discriminates in the respect or guarantee of a convention-based right, it would violate Article 1(1) and the substantive right in question. If, to the contrary, the discrimination refers to an unequal protection under domestic law, it would violate Article 24. Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Law Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 272. 442 Cf. Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, para. 141, and Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, para. 88. 443 Cf. Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 993/2001, Althammer v. Austria, 8 August 2003, para. 10.2. (“that a violation of article 26 [equality before the law] can also result from the discriminatory effect of a rule or measure that is neutral at face value and without intent to discriminate.” Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, Non-discrimination. 444 Cf. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Communication No. 31/2003, L.R. et al. v. Slovakia, 7 March 2005, para. 10.4.4. 445 Cf. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 25 on temporary special measures (2004), note 1 (“Indirect discrimination against women may occur when laws, policies and programmes are based on seemingly gender-neutral criteria which in their actual effect have a detrimental impact on women”). 446 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20, Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights (art. 2, para. 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), 2 July 2009. 447 Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012 Series C No. 251, para. 234.