entail any particular complexity and consisted essentially of determining whether Supermercados Peruanos breached the Consumer Protection Law. Regarding the second element, the Commission takes note that the alleged victim used all means available in the legislation to obtain a definitive decision regarding his complaint for discriminatory treatment filed before INDECOPI and there is no element to hold that his actions generated an excessive delay in the proceeding. On the contrary, as for the third element, the Commission notes that, the complaint filed on October 1st, 2004 was decided on first instance on August 31, 2005, which means 10 months later. Such decision was appealed and the appeal was decided on May 17, 2006. The alleged victim filed a nullity remedy, which was declared inadmissible on June 10, 2008, which is why he filed a further appeal, which was decided two years later, on June 14, 2010. Finally, the cassation remedy was decided on April 11, 2011. As it can be observed, the delay was caused by the time it took the authority to resolve the remedies filed, without the State having provided reasons to justify the time elapsed for the decision for each remedy. In light of the above, the Commission regards that the State breached the guarantee of reasonable time foreseen in article 8.1 of the American Convention. 63. In virtue of all the addressed in the present section, the Commission concludes that the State of Peru is responsible for the violation of the principle of equality and nondiscrimination, privacy, fair trial and judicial protection foreseen in articles 24, 11, 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to article 1.1 of the same instrument, in detriment of Crissthian Manuel Olivera Fuentes. 64. On the other hand, as for the claim for violation to freedom of thought and expression formulated by the alleged victim, the Commission deems that an autonomous determination does not proceed since its grounds are analyzed under the principle of equality and nondiscrimination and the right to privacy. Likewise, the Commission regards to have no elements to perform an analysis of the violation of the right to defense. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65. The Commission concludes that the State of Peru is responsible for the violation of the rights set forth in articles 8.1 (fair trial), 11 (privacy), 24 (equality before the law) and 25.1 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human rights, in relation to the obligations set forth in el article 1.1 of the same instrument. 66. Based on the analysis and the conclusions of the present report, THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THE STATE OF PERU: 1. To integrally repair violations to human rights declared in the present report, including the payment of an indemnity on account of material and immaterial damages. In particular, adopting the payment of an indemnity for the lack fof effective judicial protection regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation suffered by the victim of the case, as well as the excessive delay of the fostered proceeding. 2. To adopt the measures oriented to avoid the repetition of the facts of the present case. In particular: i. To elaborate and implement a public policy to promote in the society regarding rights of LGBTI persons and their social acceptance, especially through education and general culture, and through the elaboration and implementation of informative and sensibilization and awareness campaigns in public and private media on sexual orientation, gender identity, expression of gender, corporal diversity and gender approach, instilling equality and nondiscrimination, respect, acceptance and integral social inclusion of LGBTI persons ; ii. To create or strengthen specialized training mechanisms for all justice operators (including male and female judges, prosecutors, public defense counsels, male and female clerks at courts), and security forces of the State on equality and nondiscrimination, perspective on gender and human rights of LGBTI persons. Particularly, operators of justice must have guidelines which allow them to ensure that the rules of argumentation and burden of proof are compatible with Inter American standards on the matter and do not impose an excessive burden on subjects who claim discrimination. 19