48 207 proportionate to the end sought. Distinctions based on grounds explicitly enumerated under pertinent articles of international human rights instruments are subject to a particularly strict level of scrutiny whereby states must provide an especially weighty interest and compelling justification for 208 the distinction. 228. Thus, the IACHR has already held that in order for a restriction based on race or national origin to be justified, it must be based on very compelling reasons and the burden of proof rests with the State. Hence, when a restriction is premised on a “suspect category,” the Commission accepts the 209 “reversal of the burden of proof” and the “presumption of invalidity.” 229. Strict scrutiny serves to guarantee that the distinction is not based on the prejudices 210 and/or stereotypes that generally surround suspect categories of distinction. In practical terms, this means that when a situation of this nature presents itself, the burden of proof is on the State and the general criteria are evaluated carefully. Thus, it is not sufficient for a State to argue the existence of some legitimate end; instead the purpose that is served by making the distinction must be some 211 overriding or imperative public interest. It is not sufficient that the measure be suitable or that some logical relationship of causality exists between the measure and the end being sought, in the sense that 212 there is no other less restrictive measure. To meet the proportionality test, the State must be able to show that a proper balance of interests has been struck between what has been sacrificed and what has 213 been gained. 230. As for the obligation to create conditions of real equality, the IACHR has indicated that an examination of laws and policies based on the principle of effective equality and non-discrimination also includes the potential discriminatory impact of those measures, even when their formulation seems at first 214 glance neutral or they apply to everyone without distinction. 207 See, inter alia, IACHR, Report No. 51/01, Case 9903, Ferrer-Mazorra et al. (United States), Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, OEA/Ser./L/V/II.111, doc. 20, rev., April 16, 2001, paragraph 238. 208 See, inter alia, IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 338, citing, inter alia, Repetto, Inés, Supreme Court of Justice (Argentina), November 8, 1988, Justices Petracchi and Baqué, paragraph 6; Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1, 87 (1967), ECHR, Abdulaziz v. United Kingdom, Judgment of May 28, 1985, Series A No. 94, paragraph 79. 209 See, inter alia, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.doc.68, January 20, 2007, paragraph 87.. 210 See, inter alia, IACHR, Application filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Karen Atala and Daughters v. Chile, September 17, 2010, paragraph 88. 211 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, paragraphs 80 and 83; IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 338; IACHR, Report No. 4/01, María Eugenia Morales de Sierra (Guatemala), January 19, 2001, paragraph 36; IACHR, Annual Report 1999, Considerations regarding the Compatibility of Affirmative Action Measures Designed to Promote the Political Participation of Women with the Principles of Equality and Non-Discrimination, Chapter VI; ECHR, Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, Application No. 33290/96, December 21, 1999, paragraph 29; Belgian Linguistics (Merits), Judgment of July 23, 1968, p. 34; Lustig-Prean y Beckett v. United Kingdom, Applications Nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96, September 27, 1999, paragraph 80; Smith and. Grady v. United Kingdom, Applications Nos. 33985/96 y 33986/96, September 27, 1999, paragraph 87. 212 IACHR, Report No. 38/96, X and Y (Argentina), October 15, 1996, paragraph 74; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, paragraph 83. See also, ECHR, Karner v. Austria, Application No. 40016/98, 24 July 2003, paragraph 41; Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, Application No. 33290/96, 21 December 1999, paragraph 29; Belgian Linguistics (Merits), Judgment of July 23, 1968, p. 34. 213 IACHR, Application filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Karen Atala and Daughters v. Chile, September 17, 2010, paragraph 89. 214 IACHR, Access to Maternal Health Services from a Human Rights Perspective, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 69, June 7, 2010, paragraph 58; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, paragraph 90; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, paragraph 141. CERD, Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. United States, CERD/C/USA/CO/6, May 8, 2008, paragraph 10 (“[T]he Committee notes that indirect, or de facto,– discrimination occurs where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons of a Continúa…