witness proposed by the representatives, an expert witness proposed by the State 6 and an expert witness proposed by the Commission. The public hearing took place on August 24, 2022, during the Court’s 150th Regular Session held in Brasilia, Brazil. 7 10. Amici Curiae. The Court received twelve amicus curiae briefs submitted by: 1) José Benjamín González Mauricio; 8 2) students and staff of the human rights department of the Law and Social Sciences Faculty at the National University of Comahue; 9 3) the Presente organization; 10 4) Outright International organization; 11 5) the Law Clinic on Freedom of Information and Transparency of the Law Faculty at Universidad del Pacífico; 12 6) the Coalition of LGBTTTI and Sex Workers working within the framework of the OAS; 13 7) the International Human Rights Observatory of the National Lawyers’ On August 4, 2022 the State requested a change in the presentation of the testimony of expert witness Rafael Rodríguez Campos so that it could be given virtually. In a note from the Secretariat dated August 18, 2022, and having notified the representatives and the Commission of the State's request for observations, and after having granted the State the right to reply to said observations, the parties and the Commission were informed of the President's decision to modify the nature and modality of said expert's statement, ordering him to testify as a witness and by means of an affidavit. On August 20, 2022, the State requested a reconsideration of the President's decision. On August 22, 2022, the Plenary of the Court dismissed the application filed by the State and confirmed the President’s decision. Cf. Olivera Fuentes v. Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2022. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/olivera_fuentes_22_08_22.pdf 7 The following persons appeared at the hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission; Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño, Commissioner, IACHR, Jorge Meza Flores, Assistant Executive Secretary and Carla Leiva, Adviser of the Commission; b) for the representatives of the alleged victim: Carlos Joel Zelada Acuña, Sayda Silvia Lucas Aguirre, Diego Alberto Quesada Nicoli and María Ysabel Cedano García, c) and for the State of Peru: Carlos Miguel Reaño Balarezo, Specialized Supranational Public Prosecutor, Judith Cateriny Córdiva Alva, Lawyer of the Specialized Supranational Public Prosecutor’s Office and José Carlos Vargas Soncco, Lawyer of the Specialized Supranational Public Prosecutor’s Office. 8 The brief was signed by José Benjamín González Mauricio and relates to hate speech against sexually diverse populations in Latin America and the Caribbean. 9 The brief was signed by the lawyer Jorge Montes and students of the II Human Rights Seminar– 2022 of the National University of Comahue and contains considerations on (i) heteronormativity, (ii) principle of non-discrimination, (iii) the superior interest of the child, (iv) harm to fundamental rights, and (v) proposals for possible reparations in the specific case. 10 The brief was signed by Gabriel de la Cruz Soler, María Pía Bravo, Renato Velásquez Peláez, Kerli Solari Díaz and Mariela Noles Cotito and relates to (i) exclusion and violence that still persist: situation of structural discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people in Peru, (ii) demolishing the structures of discrimination: necessary measures of reparation in the face of discrimination against LGBTIQ+ persons in the private sphere, and (iii) businesses, human rights and LGBTIQ+ people: recommendations for transformational reparations. 11 The brief was signed by Alberto Belaunde de Cárdenas and Arif Hyder Ali and relates to (i) statement of interest to the amici curiae, (ii) presentation of preliminary arguments, (iii) summary of facts and background (iv)proceedings before the Commission, (v) arguments and (vi) conclusion. 12 The brief was signed by Andrés Calderón and relates to (i) discrimination and attacks on freedom of gender expression in the Peruvian context, (ii) scope of the right to freedom of expression, in particular, freedom to gender expression; (iii) analysis of the restriction of the right to freedom of expression in relation to State obligations to respect, guarantee and non-discrimination; (iv) omissions in the authorities’ reasoning in the administrative and judicial proceedings on the right to freedom of expression, and (v) conclusions. 13 The brief was signed by Fanny Gómez-Lugo, Daisha Edmundson, Stephane Lustig and Juan Felipe Rivera and relates to the following arguments: (i) Crissthian suffered discrimination both for his sexual orientation and for his gender expression. Crissthian was a victim of discrimination for displaying affection toward his partner in public, which effectively constituted a violation of the right to freedom of expression; (ii) it is essential to understand the context of violence and systemic discrimination suffered by the LGBT community in Peru. What happened to Crissthian was not an isolated case, but forms part of a system that discriminates against people based on perceptions of their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, both in Peru and throughout the Latin American region; (iii) heterosexual couples will never experience the discrimination suffered by Crissthian and his partner due to heterosexual privilege and heteronormativity. Due 6 6