as possible toward the full realization of this right, 196 subject to available resources, by legislation or other appropriate means. Likewise, the obligation of non-retrogression is imposed with respect to the realization of the rights achieved. 197 Consequently, the obligations to respect and guarantee rights established in the Convention, as well as the adoption of provisions of domestic law (Articles 1(1) and 2), are essential to achieve their effectiveness. 198 131. In this regard, the Court notes that the instant case refers to obligations of an immediately enforceable nature derived from Article of 26 of the Convention with respect to the failure to guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to participate in cultural life without discrimination, because of their lack of access to the means of communication necessary to do so. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Court may in the future consider, if the necessary elements are present, the obligations of a progressive nature in relation to the right under analysis. d) Alleged violations of the rights to freedom of expression, to equality before the law and to participate in cultural life of the Maya Kaqchikel indigenous peoples of Sumpango, Achí of San Miguel Chicaj, Mam of Cajolá and Mam of Todos Santos Cuchumatán 132. The Court has reiterated that States must refrain from carrying out actions that in any way are aimed, directly or indirectly, at creating situations of discrimination de jure or de facto. 199 Thus, it has established that Article 1(1) of the Convention contains a general obligation that extends to all the provisions of this treaty and establishes the obligation of States Parties to respect and ensure the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein “without any discrimination.” In other words, whatever the origin or the form it takes, any treatment that may be considered discriminatory with regard to the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed in the Convention is, per se, incompatible with this general obligation. 200 If a State fails to comply with the general obligation to respect and guarantee human rights by applying any form of differentiated treatment that may have discriminatory effects – in other words, that does not have a legitimate purpose, or is unnecessary and/or disproportionate – this will result in the State’s international responsibility. Consequently, there is an inseparable link between the obligation to respect and guarantee human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination. 201 133. In this regard, while the general obligation under Article 1(1) refers to the State’s obligation to respect and ensure the rights contained in the American Convention “without any discrimination,” Article 24 protects the “right to equal protection of the law.” 202 In other words, Article 1(1) ensures that all treaty rights are guaranteed without discrimination, while Article 24 mandates that no unequal treatment be accorded in the domestic laws of each State or in 196 Cf. UN, CESCR. General Comment No. 3, supra, para. 9, and UN, CESCR. General Comment No. 19, supra, paras. 40 and 41. 197 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 190, and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 66. 198 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 190, and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 66. 199 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 103, and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 98. 200 Cf. Proposed amendments to the naturalization provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 182. 201 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra, para. 85, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422, para. 64. 202 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 65. -37-