specific rights recognized for consumers they cannot be analyzed in an administrative proceeding before such entity, since it exceeds the competencies recognized in the Peruvian constitution. 13. As for law, the State argues that it did not breach any conventional right. In particular concerning the principle of equality, holds that such right was not infringed and that it was the lack of proof which caused the complaint filed by the alleged victim to be declared unfounded. It adds that what the alleged victim actually objects is the burden of proof rule and the criteria of assessment implemented. The State expresses that in the complaint before the INDECOPI the alleged victim stressed that his rights were breached on August 11, 2004, however, presented a video as proof from August 17, 2004, which is why he did not prove the alleged facts. The State adds that finally, the main argument to declare the complaint unfounded in the Second Chamber was the lack of proof that would unequivocally corroborate the act of discrimination and that, in any case, the Chamber did not carry out a distinction in virtue of the sexual orientation of couples who incur in excessive expressions of affection. 14. In regard to the right to privacy and freedom of thought and expression, points out that no such rights were breached. On this point, the State claims that the fact that its response by means of a resolution was not satisfactory for the petitioner does not suggest that the State fosters impunity nor discriminatory acts because of sexual orientation, but that as it has been previously addressed, the alleged facts were not duly proven. 15. Concerning law, the State argues it did not breach any conventional right. In particular regarding fair trial and judicial protection argues that, although the decision of the 2nd Specialized Contentious Administrative Chamber took into account the best interest of the child to justify its sentence, finally in the decision of the Permanent Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice did not adhere to such argument, but assessed whether the discriminatory act was corroborated. Likewise, concerning reasonable time it underscores that the duration of the proceeding obeyed the procedural activities by the parties. III. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Complaint before INDECOPI 16. On October 1st 2004 the alleged victim filed a complaint against Supermercados Peruanos Sociedad Anónima before the Commission for Protection of the National Institute for Defense of Competition and of Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI). In this regard, claimed that: On Wednesday August 11, during evening hours the administration and security personnel of the “Dulces y Chamberdos” coffee shop of the Santa Isabel supermarket of San Miguel (2155 La Marina Ave.) discriminated Crissthian Manuel Olivera Fuentes, member of the Assembly of Associates of the Homosexual Movement of Lima (MHOL), and his boyfriend for expressions of affection in public (just physical proximity and romantic looks) Crissthian and his partner had purchased products on the first floor of the supermarket, then sat very close to each other at one of the farthest tables from the view of the children playground section of the coffee shop on the second floor and initiated the reading of some poems. There were no kisses, embraces nor caresses, therefore what the Santa Isabel spokesman pointed out in the report made by Peru 21 newspaper is false (…) The one responsible for the venue, Gabriela Madrid Paredes, along with four security staff members demanded Olivera and his partner to refrain from showing their affection since “that kind of behavior was not permitted”. Finally, upon protest by Olivera and his couple for the discriminatory treatment (heterosexual couples can publicly show in the coffee shop), they were asked to leave. (…) At all times they affirmed they were not being discriminated and that if they wanted to stay in there they had to make purchases in the same shop, but made it clear that even consuming products acquired there, they could not continue in the same attitude nor with the same behavior, “you must be sane, understand you are being treated as people, you must seat correctly and separately” she said. On another occasion (Tuesday August 17), Crissthian and his partner were discriminated by the Santa Isabel store of 2 de mayo Avenue in San Isidro by personnel of such institution. At that time both were talking, looking at a magazine and eventually kissing. Upon this situation, a worker pointed out that what they were doing was “disrespectful”, and then, a representative of Santa Isabel told them “out in the street, do all you want, but not here”. 3