protection of the law.”241 Thus, Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits discrimination de iure or de facto, not only with regard to the rights embodied therein, but also with respect to all the laws adopted by the State and their application. In other words, this article does not merely reiterate the provisions of Article 1(1) of the Convention concerning the obligation of States to respect and ensure, without discrimination, the rights recognized therein, but, in addition, establishes a right that also entails obligations for the State to respect and ensure the principle of equality and non-discrimination in safeguarding other rights and in all the domestic laws that it adopts.242 Finally, the Court has affirmed that, if a State discriminates with regard to the respect and guarantee of a conventional right, it would be in breach of its obligation under Article 1(1) and the substantive right in question. If, on the contrary, the discrimination refers to an unequal protection by domestic law or its application, the fact must be examined in light of Article 24 of the American Convention.243 140. According to the Court’s case law, Article 24 of the Convention also contains a mandate aimed at ensuring material equality. Thus, the right to equality established in said provision has a formal dimension, which protects equality before the law, and a material or substantial dimension, which requires “the adoption of positive measures in favor of groups that have historically been discriminated against or marginalized due to the factors referred to in Article 1(1) of the American Convention.”244 141. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women establishes the obligation of States Parties to “modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.” 245 On this point, the CEDAW Committee has stated that the presence of gender stereotypes in the judicial system severely impacts the full enjoyment of women’s human rights, given that these “impede women’s access to justice in all areas of law, and may particularly impact women victims and survivors of violence.”246 142. In the inter-American sphere, the preamble of the Belém do Pará Convention states that violence against women is “a manifestation of the historically unequal relations of power between women and men” and, in addition, it recognizes that the right of every woman to a life free of violence includes the right to be free from all forms of discrimination.247 143. In the case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, the Court reiterated that gender stereotypes refer to a preconception of the respective attributes, conducts, characteristics or roles that are, or should be, played by men and women,248 and that it is possible to associate Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra, para. 53 and 54, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 65. 242 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 186, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 217. 243 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. 244 Case of Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil, supra, para. 199. See also Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 66. 245 CEDAW, Article 5(a). 246 Cf. UN, CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 33 on Women’s Access to Justice, August 3, 2015, CEDAW/C/GC/33, para. 26. 247 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 394, citing the Belém do Pará Convention, preamble and Article 6. 248 Cf. Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 180. 241 -42-