nature of the establishment and with the intimacy of such conduct.” 185 122. Based on the documentary evidence provided, the administrative rulings biasedly concluded that any expression of affection between same-sex couples could imply an erotic aspect. This interpretation implies a negative stereotype based on sexual orientation with a pejorative element that would not have been applied to a heterosexual couple, 186 at least not automatically and without a detailed analysis of what actually happened and of the specific acts of affection displayed by the couple. This tainted the weighing of rights carried out by the administrative bodies and constituted an act of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indeed, this Court finds that the different domestic proceedings examined and evaluated expert opinions and testimonies with a significant stereotypical content. The assessment of the evidence cannot be guided by personal prejudices or preconceived ideas about a minority sector of the population. Evidence without a scientific basis and founded on prejudices, such as that assessed in the instant case, is discriminatory and contrary to the categories protected by Article 1(1) of the American Convention. Furthermore, the Court notes that this discriminatory attitude was not subsequently corrected or remedied by the domestic courts. 123. The Court reiterates that the right to be heard by an impartial judge or court is a fundamental guarantee of due process. In other words, the person on trial must have the guarantee that the judge or court presiding over his case brings to it the utmost objectivity. 187 The Court has established that impartiality requires that the judge who intervenes in a particular dispute should approach the facts of the case free of any personal prejudices and, likewise, offer sufficient objective guarantees to inspire the necessary confidence in the parties to the case, as well as in the citizens of a democratic society. 188 The Court has recognized that personal prejudices and gender stereotypes may affect the objectivity of the State officials responsible for investigating the complaints presented to them, influencing their perception of whether or not an act of violence has occurred, and their assessment of the credibility of witnesses and of the actual victim. In this sense, stereotypes “distort perceptions and lead to decisions based on preconceived beliefs and myths, rather than facts,” which in turn can result in the 185 Cf. Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Defense of Competition Chamber. Decision No. 0665-2006/TDC-INDECOPI, of May 17, 2006 (evidence file, folio 1918). 186 In this regard, the expert witness Laura Clérico noted that use of adjectives in the administrative file and the judicial rulings describing Mr. Olivera and his partner’s conduct as “exaggerated”, “inappropriate”, or contrary to “morals and good manners” indicate the presence of stereotypes. She also considered that the characterization of homosexual men as ‘‘promiscuous, depraved, sexual predators and criminals by nature,” as well as ‘‘liars,” produces interactions that result in human rights violations. Cf. Expert opinion of Laura Clérico rendered at the public hearing on August 24, 2022, in the context of the Court’s 150th Regular Session and written version of said expert opinion, para. 52 (file of merits, folio 1284). 187 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 171, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, para. 64. In this regard, the Court recalls that, when Article 8(1) of the Convention refers to the right of every person to be heard by a “competent judge or tribunal” for the “determination of his rights,” this expression refers to any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, that through its decisions determines individual rights and obligations. See Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 71, and Case of Colindres Shonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 64. 188 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 171, and 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, para. 304. 44