58. The above position was endorsed by other reports, including a document provided by the defendant company and prepared by the psychiatrist R.F.A. (supra para. 55), emphasizing that it was necessary “to be aware of the negative impact that exposure to gay lifestyles may have on children or the unexpected sight of erotic exchanges between individuals of the same sex.” 67 The CPC considered that, since “science has no defined or uniform and consistent position on what this may mean for children’s health, a correct and prudent attitude on the part of those who must judge any case that could entail possible harm to third parties, would require avoidance of the conduct that generates the probability or risk of such harm, especially when dealing with a sensitive group that requires special protection from the State.” 68Accordingly, the CPC concluded that, “in the interest of protecting minors, the attitude of a parent is understandable when asking a business to require a homosexual couple to be prudent in expressing their affection for each other in places where their young children are present, since what is legitimately invoked is the higher protection that every child deserves.” 69 59. Two members of the CPC presented “dissenting” opinions in which they argued that, from the evidence provided by the company, it was clear that the intervention by its staff was aimed at “preventing displays of affection between a homosexual couple” and that such evidence did not suggest that “the expressions of affection that prompted the request had been exaggerated or inappropriate.” 70 They also pointed out that “it is not consistent with the recognition of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation to demand that expressions of affection between homosexual couples be made strictly in private or without the possibility of being seen by children.” Thus, they considered that in this case, there was indeed discrimination against the consumer. 71 C. Appeal to the Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property 60. On September 22, 2005, Mr. Olivera appealed the decision of the CPC before the Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property of INDECOPI and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), Final Decision No. 1039-2005/CPC of August 31, 2005, (evidence file, folio 1878). 67 Cf. Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), Final Decision No. 1039-2005/CPC, of August 31, 2005, (evidence file, folio 1878). 68 Cf. Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), Final Decision No. 1039-2005/CPC, of August 31, 2005, (evidence file, folio 1884). 69 Cf. Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), Final Decision No. 1039-2005/CPC, of August 31, 2005, (evidence file, folio 1887). 70 Cf. Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), Final Decision No. 1039-2005/CPC of August 31, 2005, (evidence file, folio 1904). 71 Cf. Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), Final Decision No. 1039-2005/CPC of August 31, 2005, (evidence file, folio 1903). 21