their application. Thus, if a State discriminates with regard to respecting and guaranteeing a conventional right, it would be in breach of the obligation established in Article 1(1) and the substantive right in question. On the other hand, if the discrimination refers to unequal protection under domestic law or its application, the fact must be analyzed in the light of Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to the categories protected by Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 203 In this regard, and taking into account the situation of poverty that affects a large part of the indigenous population in Guatemala (supra para. 36), the Court will examine the alleged violation of Article 24 of the Convention in relation to the category of “economic status.” In this sense, the Court has already established that poverty is a category protected under the Convention, 204 since “poverty may well be understood to fall within the category of “economic status” to which the said article expressly refers, or in relation to other categories of protection such as “social origin” or “any other social condition,” in view of its multidimensional nature.” 205 134. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court has previously indicated that “States have the obligation not to introduce discriminatory regulations into their legal system, to eliminate regulations of a discriminatory nature, to combat practices of this nature, and to establish norms and other measures that recognize and ensure the effective equality before the law of everyone.” 206 135. According to the case law of this Court, Article 24 of the Convention also establishes an obligation to ensure material equality. The right to equality guaranteed by Article 24 of the Convention has two dimensions. The first is a formal dimension that establishes equality before the law; the second is a material or substantial dimension that requires the adoption of affirmative measures in favor of groups that have historically been discriminated against or marginalized due to the factors mentioned in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. Thus, the Court considers that the right to equality before the law also entails the obligation to adopt measures to ensure that the equality is real and effective; in other words “to correct existing inequalities, to promote the inclusion and participation of historically marginalized groups, and to guarantee to disadvantaged individuals or groups the effective enjoyment of their rights and, in short, to provide individuals with the real possibility of achieving material equality. To this end, States must actively combat situations of exclusion and marginalization.” 207 136. The Court has likewise pointed out that international human rights law not only prohibits laws, policies and practices that are deliberately discriminatory, but also those whose impact could be discriminatory with regard to certain categories of individuals, even when it is not possible to prove a discriminatory intention. 208 Thus, “a violation of the right to equality and 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. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422, para. 65. 204 Cf. Case of the Workers of Hacienda Brasil Verde v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No. 318, para. 341, 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. 185. 205 Cf. 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. 185, and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 102. 206 Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 289, 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. 183. 207 Cf. Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 199, and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 108. 208 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 234, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 263. See also, UN, CESCR. General Comment No. 20: Non-discrimination and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 2, para. 2 of the International Covenant on 203 -38-