added the presumed violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The State rejected the violation of all these rights. In this regard, the Court observes that a dispute exists between the parties regarding the rights that were allegedly violated in this case. The Court will now proceed to interpret the American Convention in order to determine the scope of the rights to personal integrity and to private and family life, as relevant to decide the dispute. 142. Article 11 of the American Convention requires the State to protect individuals against the arbitrary actions of State institutions that affect private and family life. It prohibits any arbitrary or abusive interference with the private life of the individual, indicating different spheres of this, such as the private life of the family. Thus, the Court has held that the private sphere is characterized by being exempt from and immune to abusive or arbitrary interference or attacks by third parties or by public authorities. 223 In addition, this Court has interpreted Article 7 of the American Convention broadly when indicating that it includes a concept of liberty in a broad sense as the ability to do and not do all that is lawfully permitted. In other words, every person has the right to organize, in keeping with the law, his or her individual and social life according to his or her own choices and beliefs. Liberty, thus defined, is a basic human right, inherent in the attributes of the person, that is evident throughout the American Convention. 224 The Court has also underscored the concept of liberty and the possibility of all human beings to self-determination and to choose freely the options and circumstances that give meaning to their life, according to their own choices and beliefs. 225 143. The scope of the protection of the right to private life has been interpreted in broad terms by the international human rights courts, when indicating that this goes beyond the right to privacy. 226 The protection of private life encompasses a series of factors associated with the dignity of the individual, including, for example, the ability to develop his or her own personality and aspirations, to determine his or her own identity and to define his or her own personal relationships. The concept of private life encompasses aspects of physical and social identity, including the right to personal autonomy, personal development and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and with the outside world. 227 The effective exercise of the right to private life is decisive for the possibility of 223 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 194, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 161. 224 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21. 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 52. 225 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 136. Mutatis mutandi, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 52. 226 227 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 135. Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 119, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 162. See also: ECHR, Case of Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (No. 7525/76), Judgment of 22 October 1981, para. 41; Case of X and Y v. The Netherlands (No. 8978/80), Judgment of 26 March 1985, para. 22; Case of Niemietz v. Germany, (No. 13710/88), Judgment of 16 December 1992, para. 29; Case of Peck v. United Kingdom (No. 44647/98), Judgment of 28 January 2003. Final, 28 April 2003, para. 57; Case of Pretty v. United Kingdom (No. 2346/02), Judgment of 29 April 2002. Final, 29 July 2002, para. 61. (“The concept of [‘]private life[’] is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. It covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person […]. It can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual's physical and social identity […]. Article 8 also protects a right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world […]. Although no previous case has established as such any right to self-determination as being contained in Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of its guarantees.”)