an objective and justified cause concerns the supplier of the product or service. Should the supplier prove the existence of an objective and justified cause, whomever claims such fact, has the duty to prove that this is actually a pretext or a simulation to incur in discriminatory practices. For all these effects it shall be valid to use signs or other surrogates of the evidential material”, in the case subject of dispute were are upon a request from store employees in order for the claimant and his couple to leave the establishment, for performing an unbecoming conduct, allowing them to remain in the place provided that they consume a product and moderate their behavior, being the objective cause the tranquility of the rest of the consumers, mainly since the claimant was on the second floor where also is the children playground area, as seen on pages forty-nine and fifty of the administrative casefile under Report No 056-J.P.P., and other one issued by Mr. William Silva respectively, which informs the misbehavior of the attendees at such establishment and these being acts concerning people’s intimacy, allowing couples expressions of affection as long as they are not excessive both for homosexual or heterosexual couples, the requirement of the cease de such actions committed by the claimant is valid, added to the fact that after being asked to keep a proper conduct the claimant and his couple continued in the establishment in question without being expelled from such place. (…) as verified from the evidence provided there is no certainty in the judge nor is his claim allowable, therefore the decision intended to declare null, does not seem product of an arbitrary act by the defendant entity, since it has abided by the norms in force on the matter, which is why this body considers that the defendant party has acted in conformity with the Law, therefore the present remedy is not allowable 12. D. Appeal 25. The Commission underscores that the alleged victim filed an appeal against the previous decision. On June 14, 2010 the Permanent Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the filed remedy inadmissible due to the following reasoning: (…) in order to impose a sanction on the supplier, it must be corroborated that the establishment incurred in an infringing conduct, in this case discriminatory on account of sex, based on subjective elements; since otherwise what should prevail is the right constitutional of presumption of innocence of the establishment; in this sense it must be considered that the burden of proof of the existence of unequal treatment befalls upon the affected consumer, and to corroborate the existence of an objective and justified cause concerns the supplier of the good or service. NINTH.- That, it is acknowledged from writs that while the claimant affirmed that the expressions of affection with his couple occurred at the coffee shop of the Santa Isabel Supermarket of San Miguel, consisted of physical proximity and romantic looks, with absence of kisses, embraces and caresses; the staff of the accused supermarket, on its reports of pages forty-seven through fifty-one of the accompanied, have pointed out that the claimant and his couple were kissing, embracing and caressing, which is why the intervention took place –at a customer’s requestin order to request them to modify their conduct upon such acts of intimacy which they considered excessive to be done in public, after which, it has been credited that the claimant remained with his couple in the establishment, which corroborates that they were not deprived from continuing to use the facilities of the commercial establishment. TENTH.- That, from what has been exposed we can conclude that it is not credited that the claimant was victim of a discriminatory treatment based on his sexual option, therefore, it is unfit to demand Supermercados Peruanos S.A to prove the existence of an objective and justified cause for the discriminatory attitude or treatment attributed to them, moreover if the evidence provided by the claimant and defendant, being parties, do not offer certainty of the occurred facts, which is why, the administrative authority imposed no sanction (…) That being said, we can see that the challenged administrative resolution has not incurred in causes for nullity foreseen in article 10 of Law No 27444, therefore the first instance sentence has been rendered in conformity with the law and respecting the rights of the parties13. E. Cassation remedy Annex 10. Decision by the Higher Court of Justice of Lima on June 10, 2008. Annex to the writ by the petitioner of November 29, 2011. Annex 11. Decision of the Permanent Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of June 14, 2010. Annex to the writ by the petitioner of November 29, 2011. 12 13 8