with a person of the same sex included as an aspect to be investigated in the disciplinary proceedings. 220. Finally, the State argued that the “warning” issued by the Court of Temuco was based “solely” on “the use of resources and employees to carry out proceedings diligences ordered” by the court in charge of the custody trial, and therefore Ms. Atala was not being sanctioned, according to that argument, for her sexual orientation. However, the Court notes that the report prepared by the visiting judge, which was later approved by the Court of Appeals of Temuco, and based on which charges were filed against Ms. Atala, stated that “it is impossible to ignore the fact that her peculiar emotional relationship has transcended the private sphere with the appearance of the aforementioned publications, which clearly damages the image of both [Ms.] Atala and the Judicial Branch. All the foregoing takes on a seriousness that merits the Court’s notice”250. Therefore, although the Court of Temuco did not expressly sanction Ms. Atala for her sexual orientation, that aspect was included in the considerations of the report prepared by the visiting judge, whose legitimacy was not disavowed or questioned by the Court of Temuco. 221. Now, regarding the legitimate purpose pursued by said investigation, the Court notes that the report submitted did not clearly state the purpose of the visit with respect to the inquiry regarding sexual orientation, since it only referred to the press reports published. In that regard, although the legitimate purpose was not made explicit in the report, from the comments made therein it is possible to infer that the inquiry regarding Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation sought to protect the “image of the judicial branch.” However, the alleged protection of the judiciary’s image cannot justify a difference in treatment based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, the purpose served by making a difference in treatment of this nature must be concrete and not abstract. In this specific case, the Court does not find any connection whatsoever between the desire to protect the “image of the judicial branch” and Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation. A person’s sexual orientation or the exercise thereof cannot provide grounds, under any circumstances, to undertake a disciplinary proceeding, since there is no connection between the correct performance of a person’s professional duties and their sexual orientation. 222. Therefore, since differentiation in a disciplinary inquiry based on sexual orientation is discriminatory, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 24 in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the American Convention to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo. C. Right to private life Arguments of the parties 223. The representatives stated that the investigation amounted to interference with the private life of Ms. Atala, since her “office was searched […], including her computer and printer, staff members of the court [were] interviewed […] on possible visits [Ms.] Atala had received from women [and Ms.] Atala was questioned about her private life and her relationship with her partner.” They added that “[Ms.] Atala was unlawfully exposed before her social and professional community, violating her private life.” 250 Report prepared by Judge Lenin Lillo of the Court of Appeals of Temuco of April 2, 2003 (record on merits, volume XII, page 5934). 68