of all human beings to self-determination and to freely choose the options and circumstances that give meaning to their lives, in keeping with their personal convictions. 111 93. The Court has interpreted the liberty recognized in Article 7(1) of the American Convention in its broadest sense, as the ability to do or not do all that is lawfully allowed. In other words, it is the right of every person to organize his individual and social life in keeping with his own choices and beliefs, and in accordance with the law. 112 94. In addition, the Court has established that the right to privacy protected by Article 11(2) of the American Convention covers aspects of physical and social identity, including the right to personal autonomy, personal development and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and with the outside world. In this sense, the Court has specified that the protection of the right to private life is not limited to the right to privacy: it also encompasses a series of factors related to personal dignity, including, for example, the capacity to develop one’s own personality and aspirations, determine one’s identity and define one’s personal relationships. In relation to sexual orientation and sexual identity, “affective life with a spouse or permanent partner is one of the main aspects of this sphere or circle of intimacy connected with privacy.” 113 Private life also encompasses the way in which individuals see themselves and how they decide to project themselves towards others, this being an essential condition for the free development of the personality. 114 This area of a person’s private life has been characterized as a space of freedom, exempt and immune from abusive or arbitrary interference by third parties or public authorities. 115 Cf. Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 116, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 60. 112 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 52, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 60. 113 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 142, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 64. 114 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 87, and Case Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 58. 115 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 86, and Case Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 57. 111 31