the case of Thais Coromoto Peña, the Executive Secretary of the National Border Council told her that she could keep her job if she withdrew her signature petitioning for the presidential recall referendum. Also, as noted, the State has failed to controvert the fact that Mr. Jorge Guerra Navarro, was able to keep his job after he disavowed his signature. With these elements, the Commission considers that the National Border Council granted differential treatment to those public employees who participated in the petition for the presidential recall referendum. 169. The Inter-American Court has, however, noted that "not all differences in treatment may be considered offensive by itself," but only that distinction that "has no objective and reasonable justification"164. The Court made the difference between "distinction" and "discrimination" so that the first are compatible with the American Convention as they are reasonable and objective, while the latter are arbitrary differences that lead to the detriment of human rights165. 170. Article 1.1 of the Convention specifically stipulates that the rights enshrined in the treaty should be respected and guaranteed "without discrimination on grounds of [...] political opinion". As for the reason for the different treatment received by the three victims, the Commission already stated in the previous section that the dismissal was based on the expression of their political opinions, so it is not necessary to further explore this point. 171. However, the Commission notes that the specific criteria under which discrimination is prohibited under Article 1.1, although not an exhaustive list166, it constitutes an illustrative list of categories for which the differences in treatment are particularly problematic167. In the case Granier et al (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, the Court found that "political opinion" is one of those categories that trigger strict scrutiny against any difference in treatment based on it168. 172. In practical terms this means that, having established a difference in treatment based on political opinion, the same is presumed incompatible with the American Convention, reversing the burden of proof for the State, which must give reasons of much weight to support a distinction of this nature in the light of the judgment of proportionality and its sub-principles of legitimate aim – that in the case of a strict judgment must be a pressing social need - suitability, necessity and proportionality in strict sense169. 173. In the present case the Commission notes that the State has denied that the dismissal had taken place as a result of the political views of the victims expressed by signing the petition for the recall referendum. Consequently, the State has not attempted to justify the difference in treatment based on political opinions, because their argument has been based on objecting that this was the real reason for the dismissal, which has already been undermined by the Commission throughout this report. 174. In these circumstances and considering the presumption of unconventionality of any difference in treatment based on political opinion and subsequent burden of proof breached by the State in the 164 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No.17, para. 46. 165 I/A Court H.R., Case of Castañeda Gutman v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 211, quoting I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No.18, para. 84. 166 I/A Court H.R., Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24,2012. Series C No. 239, para. 85. 167 Cfr. IACHR, Application before the /A Court H.R. in the Case of Karen Atala Riffo and daughters against the State of Chile, Septiembre 17, 2010, para. 88, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.502ENG.pdf. 168 I/A Court H. R., Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, paras. 223-227. 169 Cfr. IACHR, Application before the /A Court H.R. in the Case of Karen Atala Riffo and daughters against the State of Chile, Septiembre 17, 2010, para. 89, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.502ENG.pdf. 34