responsibility. Consequently, there is an indissoluble link between the obligation to respect and guarantee human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination. 101 66. Similarly, while the general obligation under Article 1(1) refers to the State’s obligation to respect and ensure the rights contained in the American Convention “without any discrimination,” Article 24 protects the “right to equal protection of the law.” 102 That is, Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits any discrimination by the law, not only with regard to the rights contained in this instrument, but also as regards all the laws enacted by the State and their enforcement. 103 In other words, if a State discriminates in its respect for, or guarantee of, a treaty-based right, it would be in breach of the obligation established in Article 1(1) and the substantive right in question. If, on the other hand, the discrimination refers to unequal protection by domestic law or its enforcement, this fact must be analyzed in light of Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to the categories protected by Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 104 67. Thus, by virtue of the obligation not to discriminate, States are required to adopt affirmative measures to reverse or change discriminatory situations existing in their societies that are detrimental to a specific group of persons. This entails the special duty of protection that the State must exercise with respect to the actions and practices of third parties who, with its acquiescence or tolerance, create, maintain or promote discriminatory situations. 105 In this sense, discrimination based on one of the categories mentioned by way of illustration in Article 1(1) of the Convention, warrants particular or special consideration because the respective offense occurs due to what the alleged victims represent, or seem to represent, and what distinguishes them from other people. 106 68. The Inter-American Court has recognized that many people have historically been victims of structural discrimination, stigmatization, diverse types of violence, and violations of their fundamental rights because of their sexual orientation. 107 In this regard, it has established that sexual orientation is a category protected by the Convention. 108 Consequently, the State cannot discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation. 109 69. The Court also considers that the criteria for determining whether or not there has been a violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination in a specific case may have varying degrees of intensity, depending on the reasons for a difference in treatment. Thus, the Court finds that, when there is a measure that establishes a differentiated treatment involving one of the categories protected under Article 1(1) of the Convention, a thorough examination must be made, incorporating especially rigorous elements in the analysis; in other words, the difference in treatment must be a necessary measure to achieve an objective that is imperative under the Convention. In this type of analysis, in 101 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra, para. 85, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 132. 102 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra, paras. 53 and 54, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 133. 103 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 186, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 133. 104 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 133. 105 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra, para. 104, and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras. Judgment of August 31, 2021. Series C No. 432, para. 110. Cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 89, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 66. 106 107 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, paras. 92 and 267, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 119. 108 90. 109 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 78, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. Cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 90. 21