by the way in which this person relates to others, through the development of relationships within the family and society. 94 This also means that the individual may experience the need to be recognized as someone who is distinct and distinguishable from others. To achieve this, the State and society must respect and ensure the individuality of each person, as well as the right to be treated in keeping with the essential aspects of their personality, with no limitations other than those imposed by the rights of other persons. Thus, consolidating the individuality of the person before the State and before society implies having the legitimate authority to establish the exteriorization of their persona according to their most intimate convictions. Likewise, one of the essential components of any life plan and of the individualization of the person is precisely their gender and sexual identity. 95 63. Furthermore, the most relevant implications and scope of the right to identity and, therefore, the right to a sexual and gender identity, are that it constitutes an autonomous right based on the provisions of international law and those derived from the cultural elements contemplated in the domestic legal systems of the States, in order therefore to satisfy the specificity of the individual, with his or her rights that are unique, singular and identifiable. 96 64. In relation to sexual orientation and sexual identity, the Court reiterates that this is also linked to the concept of liberty and to the possibility of all human beings to enjoy self-determination and to freely choose the options and circumstances that give meaning to their existence, according to their own convictions, as well as the right to the protection of their privacy. Thus, in relation to sexual orientation and sexual identity, this Court has established that affective life with a spouse or permanent partner, which logically includes sexual relations, is one of the main aspects of this sphere or circle of intimacy, 97 which is also influenced by the self-identified sexual orientation of the individual. 98 65. In relation to the right to equality and non-discrimination, the Court has indicated that States must refrain from taking actions that are directly or indirectly aimed at creating situations of de jure or de facto discrimination. 99 In this regard, it has established that Article 1(1) of the Convention is a general obligation, the content of which extends to all the provisions of this treaty and establishes the obligation of States Parties to respect and ensure the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein “without any discrimination.” In other words, whatever the origin or form it takes, any treatment that may be considered discriminatory with regard to the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed by the Convention is, per se, incompatible with this general obligation. 100 If a State fails to comply with the general obligation to respect and guarantee human rights by applying any form of differentiated treatment that may be discriminatory– in other words, that does not have a legitimate purpose, is unnecessary and/or disproportionate – this will result in the State’s international 94 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 113, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 359. 95 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 91. Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 92. See also, OAS, Inter-American Juridical Committee, Opinion “on the scope of the right to identity,” Resolution CJI/doc. 276/07 rev. 1, of August 10, 2007, para. 15. 96 97 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 141 and Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 93. 98 Cf. Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador, supra, para. 103, and Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 93. Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 103, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 125. 99 100 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 6, 2021. Series C No. 440, para. 132. 20