53 existence of a federal legal order and different local ones does not imply that they have to be identical, because their spheres of validity are different.” It also indicated that “the interpretation of the Constitution admits the possibility that, if the Legislature so decides, options other than the exclusive postulation of candidates for public office by the political parties may be established; this is a decision they are empowered to make, which does not imply that the option in force at the federal level is contrary to the Constitution or to the international treaties that Mexico has ratified […],” and that, in Mexico, the electoral law “establishes for everyone equally and without any basis for affirming the existence of discrimination, that it corresponds to the political parties to postulate candidates, without requiring that the citizens postulated must be members of those parties.” Lastly, it concluded that “to ensure the equal protection of human rights, the State may establish differences between distinct situations and establish categories for certain groups of individuals, provided that it seeks a legitimate purpose and that the classification is reasonable and related to the purpose sought by the legal order,” and this premise is complied with in the instant case, because “the regulation of the exercise of the right to be elected, with regard to the participation of candidates for elected office in the federal elections with the support of political parties, is based on the State’s legitimate interest in guaranteeing a minimal organization and planning of political representation, and not on any individual characteristics such as race, gender, religion, etc., so that it cannot be affirmed that human rights have been violated” in this case. 209. The Court has established that the alleged victim, his next of kin or his representatives may invoke different rights to those included in the Commission’s application, based on the facts presented by the Commission (supra para. 138). The fact affirmed by the representatives that independent candidacies are allowed in certain states of Mexico was not mentioned in the application brief. However, this is a fact that is stated as an example in its arguments and the State did not contest it. Hence, the Court will continue with its findings in this regard. 210. Article 24 of the Convention establishes that all persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 211. The Court has stated that it cannot be considered that every difference in treatment, in itself, violates human dignity.68 The Court has also distinguished between distinctions and discriminations, so that the former are differences that are compatible with the American Convention because they are reasonable, proportionate and objective, while the latter are arbitrary differences that lead to the detriment of human rights.69 212. The Court finds that local and federal elections cannot be compared, so that it is not possible to conclude that the differences in the way they are organized are discriminatory and violate the right to equality before the law, established in Article 24 of the American Convention. * * * 68 Cf. 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. 56; Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 46; and Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 89. 69 Cf. Juridical Condition and the Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, supra note 68, para. 84.