Association of Mexico; 14 8) the United Nations Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises; 15 9) the Unicxs Free Legal Clinic of the Law Faculty at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 16 10) the National Coordinator of Human Rights of Peru; 17 11) the NGO Colombia Diversa in representation of the Network of LBTI+ Litigants of the Americas and the Regional Network Sin Violencia LGBTI; 18 and 12) Tatiana Cardoso Squeff, Fernanda de Almeida Rangel and Lucia Souza d’Aquino. 19 11. Final written arguments and observations. On September 26, 2022, the representatives and the State forwarded their final written arguments, together with several annexes, while the Commission presented its final written observations. In a note of the Secretariat dated September 28, 2022, the parties and the Commission were granted a period of time to make observations on the aforementioned annexes. On October 6, 2022, the Commission indicated that it had observations to make. On October 7, 2022, the State and the representatives submitted their respective observations. 12. Deliberation of the case. The Court deliberated this judgment on February 4, 2023, during its 150th Regular Session. to heteronormativity, it is usual for homosexual people to be treated differently from heterosexuals and that difference in treatment is discriminatory; (iv) discrimination, violence and micro-aggressions that continuously occur in Peru have greatly affected the mental health of the LGBT community; (v) the State has the positive obligation to guarantee the protection of individuals, not only against violations perpetrated by the State itself, but also against acts committed by private individuals or entities. Therefore, Peru must ensure that companies do not apply discriminatory practices against LGBT people, and (vi) the principle of the “best interests of the child” is often used by States and organizations to justify discrimination against the LGBT community. 14 The brief was signed by Arturo Pueblita Fernández, Isabel Davara de Marcos, Julieta Becerril Romero and Juan Francisco Diez Spelz and relates to (i) arguments concerning the case that address legislation on the right to equality, identity and free development of the personality, and (ii) arguments related to human rights and businesses. 15 The brief was signed by Fernanda Hopenhaym and relates to international standards on human rights and business enterprises, emphasizing their importance in order to determine the State’s international responsibility in light of its duty to protect against human rights abuses committed by businesses, including guaranteeing access to effective mechanisms of reparation when such abuses occur. 16 The brief was signed by Renata Bregaglio Lazarete and Nicole Vásquez Lozada and relates to (i) the generalized or systematic context of discrimination against LGBTI people in Peru and (ii) the reversal of the burden of proof. 17 The brief was signed by Maria Jennie Dador Tozzini and Beatriz Ramírez Huaroto and relates to (i) the lack of public response to structural discrimination against LGBTI people in Peru, and (ii) the role of INDECOPI and its administrative process as a more efficient alternative to the amparo. 18 The brief was signed by Marcela Sánchez Buitrago, Juan Felipe Rivera Osorio, Beldys Hernández Albarracín, María Camila Arias, Carlos Mantilla, Natalia Briceño, Estefany León Ferreira, Melissa Fierro Cedeño, Katia Lázaro Vergel, Laura Valentina Rocha, Mateo Aguilera Ruíz, Ambar Sánchez Latorre and Karen Anaya Cortés and relates to (i) the public space as a common place of violence and punishment against nonhegemonic sexual orientations and gender identities in Latin America; (ii) violence due to prejudice, as an analytical tool, allows an understanding of violence and rejection of same-sex couples in the public space, as in the case under study; (iii) the national context of the case and the situation in Peru; (iv) freedom of expression (and association) includes expressions of affection between same-sex couples and is protected by the ACHR; (v) the dynamic burden of proof, its reversal or the use of presumptions as fundamental tools to analyze cases of discrimination in administrative and judicial proceedings, and as a guarantee of justice, and (vi) the impact of discrimination on the mental health of LGBTIQ+ persons. 19 The brief was signed by Tatiana Cardoso Squeff, Pedro Lucchetti Silva, Andréia Fernández de Almeida Rangel, Igor Mendinilla de Castilho, Lucia Souza d’Aquino and Daniel Ferrer Tavares Dembroz and relates to consumer protection in a business establishment and the protection derived from the State’s obligations. 7