146. Therefore, this Court finds the State responsible for the violation of the rights to equality and non-discrimination, personal liberty, privacy and work, contained in Articles 1(1) and 24, 7(1), 11(2), and 26 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Sandra Pavez Pavez, due to the discriminatory treatment she suffered when she was removed from her position as a Catholic religion teacher, and assigned duties different from those she had, after her certificate of suitability to teach Catholic religion classes was revoked by the Vicariate of San Bernardo. On the other hand, the State is not responsible for the violation of the right to have access to public service under conditions of equality, established in Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Sandra Pavez Pavez. VI.2. THE RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES 167 AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, 168 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 147. The Commission and the representatives argued that the Court of Appeals of San Miguel failed to consider whether the withdrawal of the certificate of suitability violated Sandra Pavez’s constitutional and conventional rights, and merely established the legality of the action by the religious authority, in accordance with Decree 924. They also noted that despite the fact that Ms. Pavez, in her appeal, explicitly referred to the need to assess the arbitrariness of the measure in light of her rights, the Supreme Court upheld all parts of the judgment of the Court of Appeals of San Miguel without giving any justification. Moreover, it did not respond to her plea for a ruling beyond the legality of the revocation, in order to determine whether the revocation had violated her human rights. 148. The Commission likewise recalled that Sandra Pavez Pavez approached the Chilean courts, claiming that the withdrawal of her certificate was arbitrary and illegal, that it was a serious breach of her constitutional guarantees since it prevented her from exercising her rights, and that it was discriminatory. Thus, the Commission concluded that, in addition to the breach of the duty to safeguard against the violation of the rights analyzed up to this point, the appeal for protection violated her rights to obtain a duly justified decision and to judicial protection. 149. The State argued that it should not be concluded that Sandra Pavez Pavez’s right to judicial protection was infringed by the State solely because its courts rejected the action filed. It noted that the dismissal of the action was due in large measure to the incorrect use of the procedural mechanism by the representatives of the alleged victim. It recalled that the action was brought against the then Vicar for Education of the Diocese of San Bernardo, and that in the context of that action, only the facts related to the revocation of the certificate of suitability granted by the Vicariate were mentioned. The State affirmed that Sandra Pavez Pavez never made use of a judicial mechanism aimed at questioning the actions of the public authorities or, failing that, the actions of the school authorities. In particular, it noted that the arguments that are being examined by this Court were never submitted to dispute through the domestic mechanisms available in Chile: (i) the alleged unconstitutionality of Supreme Decree No 924 of 1983 and ii) the alleged violation of labor rights or access to public service (for actions taken by national authorities or members of the educational establishment, among others). 169 In this regard, it considered that it is not appropriate to claim the international 167 Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 168 Article 25 of the American Convention. It added that the alleged victim did not challenge the legality of the decree before the Comptroller General of the Republic, nor did she file a labor lawsuit or an appeal for protection against the corporation. Moreover, she did not request a review of the legality of the actions by the authorities of the educational establishment before the Comptroller General of the Republic, nor did she file an action for the annulment of a public law. 169 38