them in Article 19 of the American Convention.” 160 The Court has explained that this right, with respect to children, arises from the aforementioned provision interpreted in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 26 of the American Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador. 161 124. Accordingly, the Court has affirmed that an education that is imparted in violation of human rights does not allow for the fulfilment of the aforementioned goals, is completely contrary to them and, therefore, violates the right to education. Therefore, States must take adequate steps to prevent violations of human rights in the course of the children’s educational process. 162 In fulfilling these obligations, States must take into consideration the seriousness and specificities of gender-based violence, sexual violence and violence against women, all of which are forms of discrimination. Moreover, as stated by the ESCER Committee, education must be “accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable groups, in law and in fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds.” The Committee also emphasized that the prohibition of discrimination in education “applies fully and immediately to all aspects of education and encompasses all internationally prohibited grounds of discrimination.” 163 125. In the opinion of this Court, these principles are consistent with the considerations set forth in Decree 924, which states that education “has as one of its fundamental objectives to achieve the full development of man (sic).” (supra para. 17). 126. The facts of this case relate to the withdrawal of a certificate of suitability by the Vicariate for Education of San Bernardo to a Catholic religion teacher to teach classes on that religious creed. The Catholic religion classes were held at the “Cardinal Antonio Samoré” High School, which is a public educational establishment, in compliance with the provisions of Decree 924 which “regulates religious education classes in schools.” Said Decree refers in its preamble to the “moral and spiritual values inherent to our Western humanist cultural tradition” and indicates that “education has as one of its fundamental objectives to achieve the full development of man.” Similarly, Article 1 of Decree 924 stipulates that the “study plans of the different courses of the preschool, elementary and high school education shall include, in each course, two weekly classes of religion.” Article 2 states that religion classes “shall be taught in the official weekly timetable of the educational establishment.” In addition, Article 3 of the decree stipulates that religion classes must be offered in “all educational establishments in the country, as an option for the student and the family” (supra para. 17). 160 Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC 17/02, para. 84, and Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2020. Series C No. 405, para. 117. 161 Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 117. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 185. Although in the latter case the Court referred to “primary” education, it understands that this refers to the right to education in its various aspects. On the other hand, with respect to the reference to Article 26 of the American Convention, the Court has pointed out that Article 49 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, to which Article 26 refers, contemplates the right to education (Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 234 and footnote 264). 162 Cf. Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 119. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has indicated, without prejudice to other more specific actions, that the measures of prevention that States should adopt include those aimed at “[c]hallenging attitudes which perpetuate the tolerance and condoning of violence in all its forms, including gender-based violence, […] and other power imbalances.” These measures “should support children’s life skills, knowledge and participation and enhance the capacities of caregivers and professionals in contact with children” (Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 13, paras. 47 and 44, respectively). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and UN Women have referred to “strategic areas” required to achieve a “robust response to school-related gender violence,” while observing the need for analysis of “each context.” The Guidance emphasizes the importance of curricula to prevent violence and promote gender equality, as well as “training education staff to give them the tools to prevent and respond to school-related gender-based violence” (UNESCO and UN Women, Global Guidance on addressing school-related gender-based violence, 2019, pages 14 and 15). 163 Cf. Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 119. Also, CESCR, General Comment No. 13, Right to Education (Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). December 1999, Doc. E/C.12/1999/108, paras. 6 and 31. The Committee explained that the obligation of non-discrimination “is subject to neither progressive realization nor the availability of resources.” 34