contentious cases. 97 Accordingly, no rule, decision or practice of domestic law, either by State authorities or by private individuals, may diminish or restrict, in any way, the rights of a person based on their sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression. 98 89. Forms of discrimination against of LGBTIQ+ people manifest themselves in many ways, both in the public and the private spheres. 99 In this regard, the Court has recognized in its jurisprudence that LGBTIQ+ people have historically been victims of structural discrimination, stigmatization and various forms of violence and violations of their fundamental rights. This violence against LGBTIQ+ people is generally based on prejudices and negative perceptions of individuals or situations that are alien or different, and may be driven by “the desire to punish those who are seen as defying gender norms.” 100 On this point, the Court has indicated that violence exercised for discriminatory reasons has the effect or purpose of preventing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the person who is the object of said discrimination, regardless of whether that person self-identifies with a particular category. 101 90. In a previous case against Peru, the Court has highlighted the historical discrimination suffered by that country’s LGBTIQ+ population. 102 Up until 2017, the Peruvian State had no statistical information on the LGBTIQ+ population. That year, the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics conducted the “First virtual survey of LGBTI persons,” to enable “the public authorities and civil society to implement policies, actions and strategies that would guarantee their recognition and protection in the 97 This Court has explained that gender expression is understood as the external manifestation of a person’s gender through their physical aspect, which may include the way of dressing, hairstyle or use of cosmetics, or through mannerisms, way of speaking, patterns of personal behavior, social interaction, names or personal references, among others. A person’s gender expression may or not correspond to his or her selfperceived gender identity. Cf. Gender identity, equality and non-discrimination of same-sex couples. State obligations concerning change of name, gender identity, and rights derived from a relationship between samesex couples (interpretation and scope of Articles 1(1), 3, 7, 11(2), 13, 17, 18 and 24, in relation to Article 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-24/17 of November 24, 2017. Series A No. 24, para. 32 (g) and para. 75. See also, Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 90, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422, para. 67. 98 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 91, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 123. 99 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, supra, para. 36, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 68. 100 Cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 92, and Differentiated approaches with respect to certain groups of persons deprived of liberty (Interpretation and scope of Articles 1(1), 4(1), 5, 11(2), 12, 13, 17.1, 19, 24 and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments). Advisory Opinion OC-29/22 of May 30, 2022. Series A No. 29, para. 227. See also, Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Discrimination and violence against individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity, May 4, 2015, A/HRC/29/23, para. 21; Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, November 17, 2011, A/HRC/19/41, A/HRC/19/41, paras. 20 and 21; and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe – OSCE, Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region – Incidents and Responses, Annual Report 2006, OSCE/ODIHR, Warsaw, 2007, page 53. 101 Cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 93. 102 Cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, paras. 47 a 49. 29