26 122. The Inter-American Court has repeatedly held that not every difference in treatment can be regarded as a violation of the American Convention. 100 The Court has also distinguished “distinctions” and “discriminations,” reasoning that distinctions are differences that are compatible with the American Convention because they are reasonable and objective, whereas “discriminations” are arbitrary differences that are detrimental to human rights. 101 123. The IACHR has written that the laws and policies should be examined to ensure that they comport with the principles of effective equality and non-discrimination; in so doing, the analysis should look for potential discriminatory impacts, even when the formulation or wording appears neutral or they apply to everyone without discrimination. 102 Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Racial Discrimination have recognized the effects of indirect discrimination. 103 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Development, for its part, has defined indirect discrimination as “laws, policies or practices that appear neutral at face value, but have a disproportionate impact on the exercise of Covenant rights as distinguished by prohibited grounds of discrimination.” 104 124. The European Court of Human Rights has also developed the concept of indirect discrimination by establishing that where a general policy or measure has disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group, it is not excluded that this may be regarded as discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed or directed at that group. 105 125. Various concepts of the right to equality and non-discrimination have developed. For example, one concept is related to the prohibition of arbitrary difference in treatment –with difference in treatment understood as any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference106–; another concept is related to the obligation to create conditions of real equality for groups that have historically been the victims of discrimination. Another concept tied in with the previous two is the concept of indirect discrimination or the disproportionate impact of laws, measures, policies and so forth, which appear neutral but affect certain groups differently. 126. The multiple variations on the right to equality are reflected in the Inter-American Court’s cases and advisory opinions in the sense that in order to give effect to the right to equality 100 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, par. 211, citing 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, par. 56; Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child.. Advisory Opinion OC-17/03 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, par. 46; and Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, par. 89. 101 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, par. 211, citing Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, supra, note 68, par. 84. 102 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, par. 90. See Also I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, par. 141. Human Rights Committee, Communication No.993/2001, Althammer v. Austria, August 8, 2003, par. 10.2.; Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Communication No. 31/2003, L.R. et al. v. Slovakia, par. 10.4. 103 104 United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20: Nondiscrimination in economic, social and cultural rights (Article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), July 2, 2009. 105 106 European Court of Human Rights, Hoogendijk v. Netherlands, Application No. 58641/00, 2005. See: United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment 18, Non-discrimination, 10/11/89, CCPR/C/37, par. 7; I/A Court H.R., Corte I.D.H., Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, par.. 92; Fourth Progress Report of the Rapporteurship on Migrant Workers and Their Families, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.117, Doc. 1 rev. 1, Annual Report IACHR 2002, March 7, 2003, par. 87.