IV. ANALYSIS OF DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION Duplication of procedures and International res judicata: No Articles 8 (Fair Trial), 11 (Privacy), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 24 (Equal Protection) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to its Articles 1.1 and 2 Rights declared admissible Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule: Timeliness of the petition: V. May 30, 2011 Yes; November 29, 2011 ALLEGED FACTS 1. The petitioners indicate that the alleged victim, Crissthian Manuel Olivera Fuentes, was discriminated against based on his sexual orientation. They assert that on August 11, 2004, he and his partner were at a coffee shop located in one of Supermercado Santa Isabel stores, owned by Supermercados Peruanos S.A. company, in the city of Lima, reading poems in a romantic attitude, without any physical contact. They indicate that the supermarket’s security staff requested them to cease their romantic behavior, because a client who was with his under-aged daughter had complained about these romantic scenes. They claim that later the shop’s supervisor along with four security guards approached to recall them to cease such behavior, because their romantic expressions could harm the children playing there. They submit that the supervisor asked them to leave unless they would buy something there, and that if they were to buy at the coffee shop, they had to refrain from their romantic behavior in order not to make other clients feel uncomfortable. 2. They assert that the alleged victim disseminated a press release denouncing the treatment received, after which Reporte Semanal, a program broadcast on Frecuencia Latina television network, made a report broadcast on August 22, 2004 consisting in the mounting of interventions at three supermarkets, including a different store of the same supermarket company at issue. The interventions consisted in that the alleged victim and his partner would go to the selected stores and that the journalist would go would his girlfriend and show the same behavior as the other couple. The aim was to show the differentiated treatment toward romantic behavior of people of diverse sexual orientation. They indicate that, in the framework of the intervention, the alleged victim and his partner were reprimanded by Santa Isabel supermarket’s security staff, and expelled from the store, in contrast with the treatment received by the journalist and his partner. 3. They assert that on October 1, 2004 the alleged victim filed a complaint for discrimination based on sexual orientation, against Supermercados Peruanos S.A. before the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), based on Legislative Decree No. 716, Law of Consumer Protection. They indicate that on August 31, 2005 INDECOPI’s Consumer Protection Committee found the claim groundless for considering that the alleged victim had failed to demonstrate the discriminatory treatment under the terms established in Article 7.b of the Law of Consumer Protection, and that, in the child’s best interest, companies were entitled to request any couple to cease their romantic behavior. Likewise, said body dismissed the report that the alleged victim had presented as supporting evidence, on the grounds that the video recording belonged to another date than the one of the denounced alleged facts and that it was the result of acts provoked by the claimant. In view of this, the alleged victim filed an appeal. By a resolution dated May 17, 2006, the Chamber for the Defense of Competition of INDECOPI’s Tribunal decided to uphold the lower judgment on the grounds that the alleged victim had failed to submit evidence of the facts occurred on August 11, 2004; and, on the same grounds, it dismissed the submitted report. Moreover, the Tribunal considered that the defendant’s claim that the measure was adopted based on the principle of the child’s best interest was out of order, for had the behavior been excessive, the harm would have been to all the other clients regardless of their age. 2