with heterosexual persons in terms of public affection. 119. The unequal treatment was further aggravated by the CPC’s subsequent considerations regarding the existence or not of a “scientific consensus” on the consequences of exposing children to “homosexual behavior,” relying, among other things, on a report provided by Supermercados Peruanos S.A. and prepared by the psychiatrist R.F. This report stated that a family environment “with a father and a mother as a reference for [children’s] sexual identification and understanding of marital relationships,” was “very important for the normal psychosexual development of children.” 178 Furthermore, according to the report, witnessing “kissing, hugging and caresses” between same-sex couples has an impact on a child’s mental health, 179 disrupting his or her understanding of loving relationships between a man and a woman, “causing insecurity and anguish.” 180 120. Far from rejecting such considerations as homophobic and characterizing homosexuality as pathological, the CPC made use of this report, highlighting the psychiatrist’s comments that the environment can condition people’s psychosexual behavior, “possibly with an even greater influence on children exposed to homosexual behavior,” and emphasizing “the negative effects on the childhood of minors exposed to gay lifestyles or to the unexpected sight of erotic acts between persons of the same sex.” 181 In this regard, the Court recalls that the general objective to protect the principle of the best interests of the child is, in itself, a legitimate aim and is, moreover, imperative. However, it cannot be used as an argument to justify discriminatory acts based on sexual orientation. 121. The Court also notes that the report prepared by the psychiatrist R.F.A. and provided by Supermercados Peruanos S.A. described the acts between Mr. Olivera and his partner (characterized by the domestic authorities as “kisses, hugs and caresses”) as “erotic scenes.” 182 Similarly, the CPC referred to them as “erotic displays.” 183 This view was confirmed by the Chamber for the Defense of Competition, which referred to documentary evidence submitted by the accused company where reference was made to Mr. Olivera and his partner “kissing and caressing each other,” engaging in “improper acts (fondling)” and behaving “in an immoral manner,” thus endorsing the company’s account that these “intimate acts” were “[too] excessive to be performed in public.” 184 The Chamber also compared Mr. Olivera and his partner’s behavior to acts such as “nudism, sexual relations, or displays of affection that are not in keeping with the public 178 Cf. Medical-psychological report prepared by Doctor R.F. before the Consumer Protection Commission of INDECOPI, undated (evidence file, folios 1864 and 1865). 179 Cf. Medical-psychological report prepared by Doctor R.F. before the Consumer Protection Commission of INDECOPI, undated (evidence file, folio 1865). 180 Cf. Medical-psychological report prepared by Doctor R.F. before the Consumer Protection Commission of INDECOPI, undated (evidence file, folio 1865). 181 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 1878). 182 Cf. Medical-psychological report prepared by Doctor R.F. before the Consumer Protection Commission of INDECOPI, undated (evidence file, folio 1865). 183 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 1890). 184 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 1921). 43