their consent or in a context in which their consent cannot be inferred due to seduction, deception, abuse of power, coercion, intimidation or other reason, it becomes considered under the crime of rape (supra paras. 145 to 149). 156. In light of all the previous considerations, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights of the child, equality before the law and judicial protection, pursuant to Articles 19, 24 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, as well as for failure to comply with the obligations derived from Articles 7(b), 7(c) and 7(e) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Brisa De Angulo Losada. B.4 Discrimination in access to justice based on reasons of gender and childhood, and institutional violence 157. Regarding the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination, the Court has indicated that the notion of equality arises directly from the natural unity of humankind and is inseparable from the essential dignity of the individual, which is incompatible with any situation that, because a certain group is considered superior, leads to its privileged treatment or, conversely, a group, because it is considered inferior, is treated with hostility or any form of discrimination, excluded from the enjoyment of rights that are recognized for those who do not consider themselves to be in such a situation.292 At the current stage of the evolution of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the domain of jus cogens.293 The legal framework of national and international public order rests on it and permeates the entire legal system. States must refrain from carrying out actions that are in any way aimed, directly or indirectly, at creating situations of de jure or de facto discrimination.294 158. The Court has indicated that, while the general obligation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention refers to the State's duty to respect and guarantee “without discrimination” the rights contained in said treaty, Article 24 protects the right to “equal protection of the law".295 Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits discrimination in law or in fact, not only with respect to the rights enshrined therein, but with respect to all laws approved by the State and their application. That is, it does not limit itself to reiterating the provisions of Article 1(1) of the Convention, regarding the obligation of States to respect and guarantee, without discrimination, the rights recognized in said treaty, but it enshrines a right that also entails the States’ obligations to respect and guarantee the principle of equality and non-discrimination in the safeguarding of other rights and in all domestic legislation that it approves.296 In short, the Court has affirmed that, if a State discriminates in the respect or guarantee of a conventional right, it would violate Article 1(1) and the substantive right in question. If, on the other hand, discrimination refers to unequal protection of domestic law or its application, the fact must be analyzed in light of Article 24 of the American Convention.297 159. According to the Court's case law, Article 24 of the Convention also contains a mandate aimed at guaranteeing material equality. Thus, the right to equality provided for by the aforementioned provision has a formal dimension, which protects equality before the law, and a material or 292 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. 55, and Case of Barbosa de Souza v. Brazil, supra, para. 138. 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 Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 248. 293 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra, paras. 101, 103 and 104, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 138. 294 295 Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra, para. 53 and 54, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 139. 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 Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 139. 296 297 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 139. 52