matters of equality and non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as applied to businesses; and finally, (iv) it will apply the standards mentioned to the specific case, where it will examine (a) the reasoning behind the decisions issued by the domestic administrative and judicial authorities and, in particular, the standard of evidence applied to the case, (b) the alleged discriminatory use of stereotypes on sexual orientation and gender expression in the administrative proceedings, (c) the alleged failure to comply with the reasonable time limit in the domestic proceedings, and, finally, (d) it will formulate the corresponding conclusions. A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 74. The Commission recalled that, according to the Court’s case law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the domain of ius cogens. It pointed out that sexual orientation is a category protected under Article 1(1) of the Convention, and that States must therefore protect the right of all individuals to express their sexual orientation and gender identity, establishing strategies to allow for the full development of their personality and personal capacities in order to provide tools to combat the stigma, stereotypes and discrimination often faced by individuals when they express their personality and identity. Thus, States have the obligation to adopt measures, including provisions of domestic law, to protect human rights in the context of business activities, which includes both substantive and procedural guarantees, in order to ensure respect for the human rights at stake as regards corporate conduct. 75. The Commission added that, under the provisions of Articles 8 and 25 the American Convention, States are required to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process. 76. Finally, the Commission considered that Article 8(1) of the Convention, which enshrines the guarantee of a reasonable time limit, had been violated, given that the complaint was filed on October 1, 2004 but the final decision on the cassation appeal was notified on April 11, 2011, more than six years later. In this regard, it stated that the time elapsed was disproportionate, considering (i) the complexity of the case, (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party, and (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities. 77. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1), 11, 24 and 25 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Olivera Fuentes. 78. The representatives argued that the jurisdictional authorities had failed in their duty to investigate, prosecute and punish the acts of discrimination against Mr. Olivera Fuentes. They also alleged that the authorities violated the American Convention: (i) by imposing a standard of evidence incompatible with national legislation and interAmerican standards, and (ii) by using stereotypes on sexual orientation and gender expression to justify discriminatory treatment of Mr. Olivera, in violation of Articles 8(1), 24 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. They added that the failure to properly investigate, prosecute and punish the acts of discrimination suffered 25