78 ensure, without discrimination, the rights recognized in this treaty, but establishes a right that also results in obligations of the State to respect and to ensure the principle of equality and nondiscrimination in the safeguard of other rights and in any internal laws that it enacts. 367 218. The Court has established that Article 1(1) of the Convention “is a norm of a general nature the content of which extends to all the provisions of the treaty, and establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect and to ensure the full and free exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein without any discrimination.” In other words, whatever the origin or the form it takes, any treatment that may be considered discriminatory in relation to the exercise of any of the rights ensured in the Convention is per se incompatible with this instrument. 368 Consequently, the State’s failure to comply with the general obligation to respect and to ensure human rights, by means of any type of discriminatory treatment, results in its international responsibility. 369 Thus, the Court has affirmed that there is an inseparable connection between the obligation to respect and to ensure human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination. 370 Article 24 of the Convention establishes a right that also results in the State’s obligations to respect and to ensure the principle of equality and nondiscrimination in the safeguard of other rights and in all the domestic laws that it enacts, 371 because it protects the right to “equal protection of the law,” 372 so that it also prohibits the discrimination derived from any inequality resulting from domestic laws or their application. 373 219. In this regard, the Court has determined that a difference in treatment is discriminatory when it does not have an objective and reasonable justification; 374 that is, when it does not seek a legitimate objective, and when there is no reasonable proportional relationship between the means used and the objective sought. 375 220. The Court has also established that States must abstain from taking measures that, in any way, are directly or indirectly aimed at creating situations of discrimination de jure or de facto. States are obliged to adopt positive measures to reverse or change any discriminatory situations that exist in their societies which affect a specific group of persons. This entails the special duty of protection that the State must exercise with regard to the acts and practices of third parties that, with its tolerance or acquiescence, create, maintain or encourage discriminatory situations. 376 367 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 186, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 199. 368 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, supra, para. 53, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 398. 369 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 85, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 398. 370 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 53, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 398. 371 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 186, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 398. 372 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, supra, para. 54, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 398. 373 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 209, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 398. 374 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 46, and Case of Norín Catrimán (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 200. 375 Cf. Case of Norín Catrimán (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 200, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 316. 376 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, paras. 103 and 104, and Case of Norín Catrimán (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 201.