53. In light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the warning on the alleged victim as a result of his expressions of affection, with no legitimate and justified base, conducted to an affectation to the rights to privacy, as for the principle of equality and nondiscrimination of the alleged victim, being necessary that the State have an appropriate response to punish the facts described above. 3.2. Analysis of the response from the State to remedies filed 54. The Commission recalls that the alleged victim filed a complaint for discrimination before INDECOPI on October 1, 2004 and received a final unfavorable decision by means of the cassation remedy, which was rejected on April 11, 2011. 55. As stemmed from the casefile, the main reason for authorities to reject the domestic remedies was the lack of evidential material to corroborate the alleged unequal treatment. On this point, in the decision on the appeal of September 22, 2005 the Tribunal of Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property noted that the facts subject to controversy are grounded only by allegations from both parties, however, the one subject on scrutiny is the conduct by Supermercados Peruanos, which cannot be punished only from allegations by a party. In return, on the decision of appeal of June 14, 2010 the Permanent Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared that “the burden of proof on the existence of unequal treatment befalls upon the affected consumer and to prove the existence of an objective and justified cause, on the supplier of the product or service”. 56. The IACHR regards that the domestic administrative and judicial bodies imposed an excessive argumentative and evidential load on the alleged victim, despite the aforesaid standards and that the very defendant entity recognized that its actions were motivated by the affectionate acts result of the own sexual orientation of the victim, admitting unequal treatment. On this matter, the Commission points out that in the casefile the following means of proof operated which corroborated at least one interference and unequal treatment for the alleged victim on August 11, 2011: -The complaint filed by the alleged victim in which he indicated he was scolded on August 11, 2004 by personnel of Santa Isabel Supermarket in San Miguel, after expressions of affection with his couple. -The video of a report provided by the alleged victim on another alleged discriminatory act against him occurred on August 17, 2004 in another supermarket of the same company. -The reply to the complaint by Supermercados Peruanos in which it recognizes that personnel requested the alleged victim and his couple to cease their behavior due to the complaint of a customer, who “was concerned for his underage children”. -The statement from Gabriela Madrid Paredes provided by Supermercados Peruanos in which she pointed out that the day of the facts she approached the alleged victim and her couple and requested them to “cease their love scenes for respect to other customers, since one of them was complaining because there were children circulating toward the playground area”. -The report from the Chief of Prevention of Losses who confirmed having received the complaint from customers for two masculine persons who “were committing acts of homosexuality”, which required Gabriela Madrid to go ahead and explain to them to avoid performing acts which made some customers uncomfortable. -The narration by both parties according to which in some moment the National Police intervened in the incident that took place in August 11, 2004. 57. The Commission considers that these evidential elements and signs were enough to prove prima facie the existence of an interference o unequal treatment, which is why what proceeded was to transfer the burden of argumentation to the defendant to prove that its interference on August 11, 2011 had no discriminatory purpose nor effect. The IACHR notes domestic bodies imposed on the alleged victim the burden to prove the unequal treatment, and so, as it were discriminatory with an inadequate evidential standard for this kind of cases, based on its interpretation of article 7 B) of the Consumer Protection Law in force at the time of the facts52. Such article established that suppliers could not establish any discrimination whatsoever regarding requesters of products and services offered by the first in places open for public. It is forbidden to make a selection of customers, excluding persons or carrying out other similar practices, for reasons other than security of the venue or tranquility of its customers or other objective and justified reasons. The burden of proof on the existence of unequal treatment befalls on the affected consumer or, given the case, whomever represents him in the proceeding or the administration when it acts ex officio. Proving the existence of an objective and justified cause pertains the supplier of 52 17