words, private life includes the form in which the individual sees himself or herself and how and when decides to project it to others”34. 37. Based on the foregoing, the Inter American Court has noted that the sexual orientation forms part of the private life of persons. Therefore, it is a sphere where no arbitrary interference can exist35. In the case of Atala Riffo and niñas versus Chile, the Court ruled that, as domestic tribunal “had the sexual orientation as reference” of Mrs. Atala, they exposed several aspects of her private life36. 38. On the other hand, national and international courts have also referred to the prohibition of discrimination on sexual orientation in the access to public or private services. In the case of Beizaras and Levickas versus Lithuania, the European Court on Human Rights ruled on a situation in which two people were subject to comments and threats after publishing a photograph of them kissing, on the Facebook platform, which were not investigated. The court stressed that: (…) 121. Therefore, the Court recalls that the Klaipėda District Court considered that the image of two men kissing did not contribute to social cohesion nor to the fostering of tolerance (see paragraph 21 above). This opinion was fully supported by the Regional Court of Klaipėda, which also considered that it would have been preferable that the claimants had only shared such images among "people with alike mentality", since Facebook allowed that possibility (see paragraph 23 above). Given these references expressed to sexual orientation of the claimants, it is clear that one of the reasons to refuse to open an inquiry was the disapproval from tribunals for the claimants showing their sexual orientation (compare and contrast Bączkowski and others, cited above, §§ 95 and 97). 29. Considering all the material available, the Court finds so established, first, that comments of hatred, including undisguised calls to violence from private individuals toward the claimants and the homosexual community in general, were instigated by an intolerant attitude toward that community and, secondly, that the very discriminatory mood was at the core of the noncompliance by pertinent public authorities to fulfill their positive obligation to investigate effectively whether those comments on the sexual orientation of the claimants conformed an encouragement to hatred and violence, which confirms that by reducing the danger of those comments, authorities at least tolerate such comments (see, mutatis mutandis, Begheluri, cited above, § 179). In light of these facts, the Court also considers given that the claimants suffered discrimination due to their sexual orientation. It also considers that the government provided no justification which proves that the reported distinction was compatible with the Convention’s standards37. 39. On the other hand, as an example, the Commission observes that the Colombian Constitutional Court determined in 2011 that a mall violated the prohibition to discriminate by requesting a couple of gay men who were kissing there to cease their conduct or to leave considering that in such several families with children were circulating. In this regard it reasoned that: 66. Finally and product of the condition of subject of special protection, as a usually discriminated group, when juridical norms are introduced or behaviors which suppose for them affectation or reduction of their rights, a prima facie presumption of discrimination operates, based on suspicious criteria its unequal treatment raises. In other words, to preserve the validity and force of such regulatory norms of the behavior or the execution of a faculty or competence or an attribution, it is necessary to undermine this discriminatory fact it is a part of. 105. As previously said, Mr. Jimmy Moreno and Mr. Robbie Pérez with their acts did not endanger the rights of others, they broke no rule of juridical order, they merely and in good faith, exerted their liberties. But also, what these young men did was to freely express their sexual orientation, as life option which in its components of sheer liberty, to kiss each other, is to be protected and respected by the State and private individuals. (…) This means that the treatment given by the security guard, aimed to annul, or dominate the homosexual young men, appealing to IHR Court. Case of Atala Riffo and girls vs. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Sentence of February 24, 2012. Serie C No. 239, para 162. IHR Court. Case of Atala Riffo and girls vs. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Sentence of February 24, 2012. Serie C No. 239, para 165. 36 IHR Court. Case of Atala Riffo and girls vs. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Sentence of February 24, 2012. Serie C No. 239, para 166. 37 European Court on Human Rights, Case of Beizaras and Levickas vs. Lithuania. Decision of February 14, 2020. 34 35 12