by discrimination is degrading for the person demeaned, because it affects their dignity, self-esteem and autonomy.31 27. The Inter-American Court has already decided that “any treatment that may be considered discriminatory with regard to the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed in the Convention is, per se, incompatible therewith.”32 Thus, the act or omission of any public authority that violates any of the rights established in the Convention may be attributed to the State as source of international responsibility. As mentioned in the judgment,33 the Court establishes a difference between the obligation to respect rights without discrimination of Article 1(1) of the Convention and the equality before the law of Article 24: In this regard, the Court considers that the arguments of the representative should not be analyzed under the provisions of Article 24 of the Convention but pursuant to the general non-discrimination obligation contained in Article 1(1) thereof. The difference between the two articles lies in that the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) refers to the State’s duty to respect and guarantee “non-discrimination” in the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the American Convention, while Article 24 protects the right to “equal treatment before the law.” In other words, if the State discriminates in the respect and guarantee of a Convention-based right, it would be violating Article 1(1) and the substantial right concerned. If, on the contrary, the discrimination refers to unequal protection under domestic law, it would be violating Article 24.34 28. As Lauterpacht asserts, the right to equality and non-discrimination is the basis for all the other freedoms35 established in different international instruments. Consequently, this principle is one of the pillars of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 1, 2 and 7)36 and of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Article 2) and has been reaffirmed in articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (and also in article 1 of its Protocol No. 12), and in articles 2 and 3 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights. 29. The right to equality and non-discrimination encompasses practices that discriminate directly, as well as those that generate disproportionately discriminatory effects towards certain persons, even when a discriminatory intention cannot be proved.37 31 Cf. HELLMAN, Deborah, When Is Discrimination Wrong? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008. Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53; Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 78; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 224. 32 33 Cf. Judgment, paras. 63 to 65. Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209. 34 Cf. LAUTERPACHT, Hersch. An International Bill of the Rights of Man. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 115. 35 36 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. […] Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 234; Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, paras. 200 and 201. 37 7