“artificial to maintain the view that, in contrast to a different-sex couple, a same-sex couple cannot enjoy ‘family life’ for the purposes of Article 8” of the European Convention197. 175. The Court emphasizes that, unlike the provisions of the European Convention, which only protect the right to family life under Article 8, the American Convention contains two provisions that protect family life in a complementary manner. Indeed, the Court considers that the imposition of a single concept of family should be analyzed not only as possible arbitrary interference with private life, in accordance with Article 11.2 of the American Convention, but also, because of the impact it may have on a family unit, in light of Article 17 of said Convention. 176. In the instant case, the Court notes that from November 2002, up until the decision on provisional custody was issued, in May 2003, there was a close relationship between Ms. Atala, Ms. De Ramón, Ms. Atala’s older son and the three girls. In this regard, Ms. Atala stated that “we were an absolutely normal family. A boy, three girls, a cat, a male dog, a female dog, a house, we had projects as a family. We had dreams as a family” 198. In addition, Ms. De Ramón stated that the “life of the five family members, six [with her …] was almost idyllic, since [they] had a relationship based on plenty of communication, at least among the women in the family”199. 177. Therefore, it is clear that they had created a family unit which, as such, was protected under Articles 11.2 and 17.1 of the American Convention, since they shared their lives, with frequent contact and a personal and emotional closeness between Ms. Atala, her partner, her eldest son and the three girls. The aforementioned, without prejudice to the fact that the girls shared another family environment with their father. 178. This Court has already concluded that the grounds presented both by the Supreme Court of Justice and by the Juvenile Court of Villarica in the provisional custody decision were not an appropriate measure to protect the girls’ best interest (supra para. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.), which also had the result of separating the family constituted by the mother, her partner and the girls. This amounts to arbitrary interference with the right to private and family life. Therefore, the Court rules that the State violated Articles 11.2 and 17.1, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the American Convention to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo and the girls M., V. and R. Regarding the latter, said violations of family life also occurred in relation to Article 19 of the Convention, given that they were separated in an unjustified manner from one of their family environments. E. Judicial guarantees and judicial protection 1. Judicial guarantees and judicial protection regarding Ms. Atala Arguments of the parties 197 ECHR, Case Schalk and Kopf, supra note 158, para. 94 (“the Court considers it artificial to maintain the view that, in contrast to a different-sex couple, a same-sex couple cannot enjoy “family life” for the purposes of Article 8”) and the Case of P.B. and J.S., supra note 196, para. 30. 198 Statement by Ms. Karen Atala Riffo before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing in the present case. 199 Statement by Ms. Emma of Ramón, August 4, 2011 (record of merits, volume II, page 762). 56