the latter did not delegate the task of certifying the suitability of teachers of denominational religion. In fact, it pointed out there is no attribution of public authority because the religious suitability of teachers of denominational religion is not a mandate of the State and that, on the contrary, it is a power vested in the religious communities or their authorities. 113. In this regard, the Court recalls, first of all, that Article 12(4) of the American Convention does not stipulate that religious authorities have the exclusive and inherent power to select religious education teachers or to determine their suitability. Said article only mentions that parents or guardians, as the case may be, have the right to ensure that their children or wards receive the religious and moral education that is in accordance with their own convictions. 114. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the possibility that the religious authorities may select teachers of religious education to teach their own doctrine, is one of the ways in which the right contained in Article 12(4) - namely the right of parents or guardians to have their children or wards, as the case may be, receive the religious and moral education that is consistent with their own convictions – can be realized. However, this is not the only means to do so and, depending on the domestic legislation of each State, this right can be realized in other ways. 156 115. Accordingly, the possibility that religious institutions have to determine the suitability of religious education teachers, far from constituting an inherent power contemplated in international law, depends on the domestic legal system established by each State. Thus, under Chilean domestic law, and specifically Decree 924, Chile’s religious authorities have the ability to issue certificates of suitability that qualify teachers of religious education teachers to teach their doctrine. However, as the expert witness Carozza points out, this is a consequence of the constitutional model of that country, and not an inherent power or one that would derive from freedom of religion. Therefore, it is the Chilean domestic regulations that delegated to third parties - in this case to the religious authorities - the power to issue certificates of suitability. Moreover, as noted previously, the certificate of suitability is necessary to teach religious education classes in public educational establishments and, therefore, to be a teacher in a public school. 116. Consequently, based on the foregoing, this Court understands that Decree 924 conferred attributes of public power upon the religious authorities, and therefore, when issuing the certificate of suitability to religious education teachers, they exercise an act that is directly attributable to the State. 117. Regarding the attribution of responsibility for a breach of the duty to guarantee, this Court understands that this may also be based on the actions of the judiciary in charge of hearing appeals related to the revocation of the certificate of suitability (infra chapter VII). b) The selection of religious education teachers by the religious authorities and the autonomous nature of their decisions 118. According to the State, the certificate of suitability required by Decree 924 to teach religious education classes is a guarantee of the autonomy of religious entities to carry out their fundamental activities, including the selection of their teachers. It added that the requirement of this particular qualification for the specific function of representing the religious community through teaching religion, guarantees that it will be faithfully taught by the person who, in fact represents that faith community, according to its criteria. Likewise, the State affirmed that it is compelled “by respect for the autonomy of religious entities to recognize and not question the decision taken, when faced with 156 On this point, it should be recalled that Paolo Carozza, the expert witness proposed by the State, indicated that with regard to the right to receive religious education in accordance with the convictions of the parents, “the various legal systems and legal traditions of the States in the inter-American sphere offer very different constitutional models in terms of the relationship between religion and the State […] which will necessarily have an impact on how the State would fulfill its obligations under Article 12(4) […] in some States such as Peru or Chile, it could mean the active provision of religious instruction in public schools, while in others, such as Mexico or the United States, it would be constitutionally unacceptable and the obligation of the State should be understood as having a rather indirect and passive content. However, despite reasonable differences on the question of how [to comply] the State must fulfill its affirmative obligations under the ACHR 12(4).” Statement of Paolo Carozza rendered by affidavit (evidence file, folio 873). 32