75 B.3.c Duty not to discriminate when respecting and ensuring the rights recognized in Articles 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17 of the American Convention 238. The Court has indicated that “the notion of equality springs directly from the oneness of the human family and is linked to the essential dignity of the individual. That principle cannot be reconciled with the notion that a given group has the right to privileged treatment because of its perceived superiority. It is equally irreconcilable with that notion to characterize a group as inferior and treat it with hostility or otherwise subject it to discrimination in the enjoyment of rights which are accorded to others not so classified.312 At the actual stage of evolution of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the domain of jus cogens. The legal structure of national and international public order is based on this, and it permeates the whole legal system. States must refrain from executing actions that, in any way, are addressed, directly or indirectly, at creating situations of discrimination de iure or de facto.313 239. When interpreting Article 1(1) of the Convention, the Court has stipulated that it is a rule that is general in scope “which applies to all the provisions of the treaty, and imposes on the States Parties the obligation to respect and guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein "without any discrimination." In other words, regardless of its origin or the form it may assume, any treatment that can be considered to be discriminatory with regard to the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is per se incompatible with that instrument.”314 240. That said, the Court recalls that not every difference in treatment will be considered discriminatory, but only those that are based on criteria that cannot rationally be considered objective and reasonable.315 When the differentiating factor corresponds to one of those elements protected by Article 1(1) of the Convention, which refer to: (i) permanent characteristics of the individual that he or she cannot renounce without losing their identity; (ii) groups that are traditionally marginalized, excluded or subordinated, and (iii) criteria that are irrelevant for an equitable distribution of social benefits, rights and charges, the Court is confronted with an indication that the State has acted arbitrarily. The Court has established, also, that the specific criteria based on which discrimination is prohibited according to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, do not constitute an exhaustive or limitative list; rather, this is merely illustrative.316 Thus, the Court finds that the wording of this article leaves the criteria open with the inclusion of the expression “any other social condition,” so that other categories may be included that were not explicitly indicated, 317 but which have a similar entity, such as refugees.318 241. On this basis, the Court consider that the criteria for determining whether the principle of equality and non-discrimination has been violated in a specific case may have a different weight depending on the reasons why there was a difference in treatment. The Court finds that, in the case Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 55, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador, supra, para. 109. 312 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra, paras. 101, 103 and 104, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 109 and 110. 313 Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra, para. 53, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador, supra, para. 111. 314 315 Cf. UN, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, Non-discrimination, November 10, 1989, para. 13. Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 85, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 202. 316 317 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 85. Cf. ECHR, Case of Bah v. The United Kingdom, No. 56328/07. Judgment of September 27, 2011, paras. 44 to 47, and Case of Hode and Abdi v. The United Kingdom, No. 22341/09. Judgment of November 6, 2012, paras. 44 to 47. 318