145. The Court has established in its jurisprudence that Article 1.1 of the Convention is a general rule, the contents of which extends to all provisions of the treaty, because it has the obligation of States Parties to respect and guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein "without any discrimination". That is, whatever the origin or the form it takes, any treatment that can be considered discriminatory with respect to the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is per se incompatible with it147. Failure by the State, by any discriminatory treatment, of the general obligation to respect and guarantee human rights, gives rise to international responsibility148. That is why there is an indissoluble link between the obligation to respect and guarantee human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination149. Article 1.1 of the Convention includes within the prohibited categories for discrimination "political opinion". 146. The Commission considers that the signature for the convening of a mechanism of political participation, such as the presidential recall referendum, is not only the exercise of political rights in accordance with Article 23 of the Convention, but also an expression of a political opinion of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña, in turn protected by Article 13 of the Convention and article 1.1 thereof as discrimination prohibited category. Consequently, in accordance with the standards mentioned so far, the State had to ensure that political opinion was expressed in conditions that protect the free exercise and without fear of reprisals of the political rights. The State should have also refrained from taking actions regarding Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña based on their political views without justification and, of indirectly penalizing such expression. 147. The Commission will now determine whether the dismissal of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña, was a breach of those obligations. 2. Analysis of whether the dismissal was based on the political opinion expressed by signing the petition for a recall referendum and, therefore, constituted a violation of political rights and freedom of expression 148. At this point the Commission has to address the debate on the statement by the State regarding the termination of the contract, against the alleged real motivation for such action. In the instant case the Commission notes that the decision to terminate the contracts with the alleged victims by letter dated March 12, 2004, lacks motivation, indicating in the text of the letters only that that the contracts with the National Border Council are terminated as from April 1, 2004150. 147 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53, and I/A Court H. R., Case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 332. 148 Cfr. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No.18, para. 85, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, para. 218. 149 Cfr. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, para. 53, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, para. 218.. Anexo 17. Carta del Presidente del Consejo Nacional de Fronteras a Rocío San Miguel, comunicando la finalización de la relación laboral, el 12 de marzo de 2004, Anexo F al Escrito del Estado dentro del trámite de admisibilidad ante CIDH de 16 de enero de 2008; Anexo 18. Carta del Presidente del Consejo Nacional de Fronteras a Magally Chang Girón, comunicando la finalización de la relación laboral, el 12 de marzo de 2004, Anexo F al Escrito del Estado dentro del trámite de admisibilidad ante CIDH de 16 de enero de 2008; Anexo 19. Carta del Presidente del Consejo Nacional de Fronteras a Thais Coromoto Peña, comunicando la finalización de la relación laboral, el 12 de marzo de 2004, Anexo F al Escrito del Estado dentro del trámite de admisibilidad ante CIDH de 16 de enero de 2008. De conformidad con una comunicación del entonces Secretario Ejecutivo del Consejo Nacional de Fronteras, las presuntas víctimas prestaron sus servicios al Consejo Nacional de Fronteras hasta el 30 de abril de 2004. Ver Anexo 20. Carta del Secretario Ejecutivo del Consejo Nacional de Fronteras al Fiscal 37 del Ministerio Público, 13 de julio de 2004, Anexo II de la denuncia presentada ante la CIDH el 7 de marzo de 2006. 150 29