the day of the demonstration of this gay group I was present and it was horrible to see how they kissed each other.” 165 114. The Court notes that, in this case, the Peruvian administrative and judicial authorities were faced with strong indications of discrimination based on the sexual orientation of Mr. Olivera and his partner, not only in the complaint filed by Mr. Olivera and his testimony, but also in the statements made by employees of Supermercados Peruanos S.A., as well as the supermarket’s own defense strategy. Therefore, given that the American Convention stipulates the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the possible restriction of a right required a rigorous and weighty justification. 166 Thus, it was up to the national authorities to require the accused company to demonstrate either that its actions did not have a discriminatory purpose or effect, 167 or that there was an objective and reasonable justification, 168 that is, that they pursued a legitimate aim and there was a reasonable proportionality between the means used and the end pursued. 169 115. However, this did not happen in the instant case, since the administrative and judicial authorities decided that Mr. Olivera had not provided sufficient proof of the alleged discriminatory treatment, without properly analyzing the numerous indications that existed and applying the principle of presumption of innocence in favor of the accused company. 170 For instance, at the administrative level, the CPC asked Mr. Olivera to prove that the treatment required of him was not “equally required of other consumers,” noting, as an example, that Mr. Olivera had to prove that “at the time of preventing the entry of a customer, persons of other racial characteristics were allowed to enter without such requirements.” 171 For its part, the Chamber for the Defense of Competition also considered that since the facts were based solely on the allegations of both parties, the issue did not merit further analysis. 172 It also added that there must be “certainty regarding the infraction committed.” 173 Likewise, at the judicial level, the Superior Court of Justice of Lima considered that the evidence provided by Mr. Olivera was not sufficient because it was only partial evidence, which meant that “the judge had 165 Cf. Letters provided by Supermercados Peruanos S.A. as annexes to the answering brief of October 19, 2004 (evidence file, folio 1857). 166 Cf. ECHR, Karner v. Austria, No. 40016/98, Judgment of July 24, 2003, para. 37, and Kozak v. Poland, no. 13102/02, Judgment of March 2, 2010, para. 92. 167 See, mutatis mutandis, Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 124. 168 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 46, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 49. 169 Cf. Case of Norín Catrimán (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 200, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 49. 170 Cf. Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Defense of Competition Chamber, Decision No. 0665-2006/TDC-INDECOPI, May 17, 2006 (evidence file, folio 46), and Supreme Court of Justice, Permanent Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2145-2009, June 14, 2010, (evidence file, folio 75). 171 Cf. Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), Decision of August 31, 2005 (evidence file, folio 1893). 172 Cf. Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Defense of Competition Chamber, Decision No. 0665-2006/TDC-INDECOPI, May 17, 2006 (evidence file, folio 48). 173 Cf. Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Defense of Competition Chamber, Decision No. 0665-2006/TDC-INDECOPI, May 17, 2006 (evidence file, folio 1921). 41