4. They claim that in view of said resolution, on September 13, 2006, the alleged victim filed a petition for the partial annulment of the trial judgment, before the Second Chamber Specializing in Administrative Law of the Superior Court of Lima. On June 10, 2008, said Chamber declared the petition out of order, as it considered that the submitted evidence was insufficient, for it had been collected by the claimant himself and the video recording was subsequent to the facts at issue. It also considered that, under Article 7.b of the Law of Consumer Protection, the burden of proof is an obligation to be met by the party alleging discrimination and that the security staff’s action was rooted in the protection of the child’s best interest. As to this last aspect, they allege that the Chamber ruled extra petita, since the judgment concerned an aspect not brought to its attention, thus leading to reformatio in peius. They assert that he appealed against said ruling, and that on June 14, 2010 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the lower judgment, indicating that under Article 7.b of Legislative Decree No. 716 “the burden of proof was assigned to the person discriminated against,” and that the presumption of innocence in favor of Supermercados Peruanos S.A should prevail in view of the lack of sufficient evidence. They submit that an appeal for annulment was filed against said decision, again alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation. On April 11, 2011, the Social and Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared this remedy out of order because this jurisdiction was not competent to undertake “new assessments of the evidence,” a decision notified on May 30, 2011. 5. In regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, they indicate that the appeal for legal protection was inappropriate in this case since it did not allow for time for producing evidence nor could lead to corrective measures; that, therefore, the exhausted remedy was suitable to prove the act of discrimination. Furthermore, they assert that there is a narrow connection between the violation of Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention and the violation of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, as well as of the right to nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation. Consequently, the exhaustion of domestic remedies corresponds to the exhaustion of said rights. 6. As a result of the facts described above, the petitioners claim that Mr. Olivera was victim of discriminatory treatment on the part of the supermarket’s staff, and that the administrative and judicial authorities failed to issue a proper and timely answer to his complaints, in the context of the unsuitable nature of Peru’s current legal framework for proving acts of discrimination which, in this case, led to malicious and arbitrary burden of proof for the alleged victim. They add that on September 1, 2010, the Law of Consumer Protection applied in the framework of the investigation into the facts was amended by Law No. 29571, Code of Consumer Protection and Defense. They indicate that although the law recognizes the right to nondiscrimination, it does not explicitly mention discrimination based on sexual orientation as a type of discrimination, and includes a provision similar to Article 7.b of the Law of Consumer Protection regarding the assignment of the burden of proof to the party discriminated against. Likewise, they allege violations of due process and judicial protection, since the proceedings before administrative and judicial authorities extended for 7 years, and the principle of prohibition of reformatio in peius was not respected, as the alleged victim did not have the opportunity to contest whether the child’s best interest justified the differentiated treatment. 7. For its part, the State alleges that the petition is inadmissible. It asserts that the petitioner has failed to pursue and exhaust the remedies foreseen in the domestic legal framework concerning the alleged violation of the right to the protection of one’s honor and dignity, and the right of liberty of expression and thought, in the administrative-law court, preventing thus that the competent bodies hear these claims. Moreover, it indicates that, for the defense of the rights, the petitioners chose the administrative remedy instead of constitutional appeal proceedings. Additionally, it asserts that INDECOPI is not competent to examine violations of said rights, because these do not pertain to the rights recognized to consumers; and that the administrative-law proceedings foreseen in Law No. 27584 is aimed at having the Judiciary have judicial control over public administration proceedings, without exceeding the decisions adopted there. 8. Furthermore, the State asserts that, by virtue of the subsidiarity principle of the InterAmerican Human Rights System concerning a “fourth instance,” international protection assists or complements protection given by the domestic legal framework; therefore, the IACHR cannot review decisions made by domestic courts acting within their powers and in accordance with applicable judicial safeguards, unless there is a violation of the Convention. Thus, it claims that the petitioners’ discontent with the judicial 3