(hereinafter “Tribunal for the Defense of Competition”). 72 61. On May 17, 2006, the Tribunal for the Defense of Competition decided to dismiss the appeal and upheld the challenged decision. It considered that the facts in dispute were based “solely on the allegations of both parties”, and that Supermercados Peruanos S.A. could not be sanctioned only on the basis of allegations made by one party, since it was necessary to have “certainty of the offense committed, either through evidence or indications that would provide a reasonable degree of certainty regarding the truth of the facts denounced.” 73 Moreover, the Tribunal excluded from its review the video of the TV program Reporte Semanal provided by the alleged victim regarding the events of August 17, 2004, because it “referred to conduct that would have taken place at a later date” and did not refer “directly to the facts that are the subject of [this] proceeding.” 74 On the other hand, the Tribunal considered that the arguments of Supermercados Peruanos S.A., claiming that the behavior of the complainant and his partner had affected the children present in the cafeteria, “lack[ed] relevance,” since if the conduct had been excessive “the effect would have been felt by all the other customers, whether adults or children.” 75 62. Two members of the Tribunal presented a “dissenting opinion,” affirming that “the record shows that Mr. Olivera was reprimanded for engaging in caresses with his partner and that he was harassed while he remained in the restaurant.” 76 In addition, both members of the tribunal considered that the presence of security staff to request the couple to leave the premises was “excessive, and essentially denotes a differentiated, unfair, inequitable and, above all, discriminatory treatment, which even goes against the dignified treatment that every consumer deserves.” 77 D. Appeal for annulment before the Second Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima 63. On September 13, 2006, having exhausted the administrative process, Mr. Olivera filed a contentious-administrative action before the Second Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (hereinafter “Superior Court of Lima”) to request the annulment of the ruling of May 17, 2006, issued by the Tribunal for the Defense of Competition. 72 Cf. Competition 73 Cf. Competition 74 Cf. Competition 75 Cf. Competition 76 Cf. Competition 314). 77 Cf. Competition 309). Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Defense of Chamber, Decision No. 0665-2006/TDC-INDECOPI, of May 17, 2006 (evidence file, folio 39). Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Defense of Chamber, Decision No. 0665-2006/TDC-INDECOPI, of May 17, 2006 (evidence file, folio 48). Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Defense of Chamber, Decision No. 0665-2006/TDC-INDECOPI, of May 17, 2006 (evidence file, folio 48). Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Defense of Chamber, Decision No. 0665-2006/TDC-INDECOPI, of May 17, 2006 (evidence file, folio 49). Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Defense of Chamber. Final Decision No. 0665-2006/TDC-INDECOPI of May 17, 2006, (evidence file, folio Tribunal for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Defense of Chamber. Final Decision No. 0665-2006/TDC-INDECOPI of May 17, 2006, (evidence file, folio 22