24 and the substantial right involved would arise. If, on the contrary, discrimination refers to 89 unequal protection by domestic law, a violation of Article 24 would occur. 92. Without prejudice to that, the development of the right to equality and nondiscrimination makes it possible to identify several conceptions of it. For example, one conception is related to the prohibition of an arbitrary difference in treatment —understanding difference of treatment to mean a distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference90— and another is that related to the obligation to create conditions of actual equality vis-à-vis groups that have historically been excluded and are at greater risk of suffering discrimination. Although in certain cases both perspectives may also be present, each merits a different state response and different treatment in light of the American Convention. To this is added that in the different conceptions of the right to equality the acts or omissions of the State may be related to rights enshrined in the American Convention or may refer to any state action that does not have effects on the exercise of the rights established in the Convention.91 93. The various facets of the right to equality are reflected in what has been indicated by the Inter-American Court in several cases and advisory opinions, namely that in order to give useful effect to the right to equality and non-discrimination states must “abstain from producing regulations that are discriminatory or have discriminatory effects on certain groups of population when exercising their rights,” to “combat discriminatory practices at all levels, particularly in public bodies,” and, finally, “must adopt the affirmative measures needed to ensure the effective right to equal protection for all individuals.”92 94. In that regard, even though one can take certain criteria as the basis, the determination as to which provisions of the Convention apply should be done in each specific case under an analysis that involves the person or group of persons affected, the reasons behind the alleged discrimination, the rights or interests involved, and the means or omissions by which it materialized, among other aspects.93 95. Article 1(1) of the American Convention has been used to interpret the word “discrimination” contained in Article 24 of the same instrument. In particular, in the analysis of reasonableness that is generally used to evaluate whether a State is internationally responsible for 89 I/A Court H.R. 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. 90 United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment 18, Non-discrimination, 10/11/89, CCPR/C/37, para. 7; I/A Court H.R. Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 92; Fourth Progress Report of the Special Rapporteurship on Migrant Workers and their Families in the Hemisphere, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.117, Doc. 1 rev. 1, Annual Report IACHR 2002, March 7, 2003, para. 87. 91 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Karen Atala and daughters, September 17, 2010, para. 80. 92 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. República Dominicana. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 141; I/A Court H.R. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 170; I/A Court H.R. Yatama Case vs. Nicaragua. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 185; I/A Court H.R. Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 88; I/A Court H.R. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 44; I/A Court H.R. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 54. 93 para. 82. IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Karen Atala and daughters, September 17, 2010,