discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression.” The representatives considered that these courses “should be imparted by the Administrative Corporation of the Judiciary at all levels” of the justice system. Furthermore, they requested a budget allocation for the National Human Rights Institute to enable it to implement programs for the prevention of “discrimination, dissemination, and human rights education and research.” 270. The State reported that training has been carried out “on diversity and nondiscrimination issues, especially for officials of different public institutions throughout the national territory, with the aim of disseminating the different national and international instruments for the protection of diversity.” 271. The Court takes notes the advances made by the State in its training programs and activities directed at public officials. Notwithstanding this progress, the Court orders the State to continue implementing continuous educational programs and training courses in: i) human rights, sexual orientation, and non-discrimination; ii) protection of the rights of LGBTI community; and iii) discrimination, overcoming gender stereotypes of LGBTI persons and homophobia. The courses must be directed at public officials at the regional and national levels, and particularly at judicial officials of all areas and levels of the judicial branch. 272. In these programs and training courses, special mention must be made of both the present Judgment and the various precedents of the corpus iuris of human rights related to the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation and the obligation of all authorities and officials to guarantee that all persons, without discrimination based on sexual orientation, may enjoy each and every one of the rights established in the Convention. To this end, special attention should be paid to norms or practices in domestic law which, either intentionally or because of their results, may have discriminatory effects on the exercise of rights by persons belonging to sexual minorities. b. Adoption of domestic measures, reforms, and adaptation of laws against discrimination 273. The Commission requested the Court to order the State of Chile to “adopt [...] legislation, public policies, programs and initiatives to prohibit and eradicate discrimination based on sexual orientation in all areas of the exercise of public power, including the administration of justice.” 274. The representatives requested that the Court order measures aimed at reforming existing legislation in Chile. Specifically, they requested that a “Message of Utmost Urgency” be sent regarding the draft law establishing anti-discriminatory measures (Bulletin 3815-07) in order to ensure that said draft legislation expressly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and “provides legal remedies to lodge a claim” for a violation. In addition, the representatives called for the repeal and amendment of all regulations that “pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention would [enter into] conflict with the right to equality between people, perpetuating and validating discrimination based on sexual orientation.” 275. The State indicated that the Supreme Court’s decision does not assume “the presence of a constant and protected practice in the law (or in the insufficient regulation thereof) that might allow [...] domestic courts [...] to interpret custody laws in a discriminatory manner with regard to the parents’ sexual orientation.” The State added that “Chilean legislation concerning the determination of custodial rights does not establish direct or indirect [...] discrimination due to the sexual preference of the parents.” 78