activities, the DESC Committee has said that: “The States Party must provide proper means of reparation to affected groups or persons and ensure companies’ accountability”46. A remedy is not effective, for instance, when practice has proven it useless, because lack of means to enforce its decisions or for any other situation which configures a situation of denegation of justice47. 3. Analysis of the present case 45. In the present case it must be determined first whether the alleged victim was subject of interference of his private life, as well as unequal treatment based on his sexual orientation upon the facts occurred on August 11, 2004 and whether they had reasonable grounds. In a second moment the Commission shall analyze whether the State guaranteed the right to effective judicial protection before allegations of discrimination formulated domestically by the alleged victim. The IACHR notes that, since the facts refer to actuations of a private entity, determining the responsibility of the State shall be essential to assess the effectiveness of its response upon remedies filed by the alleged victim. In this sense, the Commission recalls that in virtue of international human rights law, it is the States who initially and directly assume the obligations set forth therein and such obligations may project effects on the behavior of such parties such as companies. This relation becomes evident when States formulate, supervise and assign explicit juridical and binding responsibilities aimed toward respect of human rights by companies at an inner level and are based on international human rights norms 48. In this sense, the Commission recognizes that in the present case ruling the responsibility of entities or private companies involved exceeds its scope of competence, being only necessary to examine the response by the State upon the alleged affectations to their rights, particularly, whether the alleged victim suffered an affectation of his rights which would require effective judicial protection. 3.1. Analysis of the unequal treatment imposed on the alleged victim by Santa Isabel Supermarket 46. Concerning the first aspect, the Commission notes that there is no controversy regarding the fact that on August 11, 2004 the alleged victim and his couple of the same sex were reprimanded by personnel of the Dulces and Chamberdos coffee shop of the Santa Isabel Supermarket of San Miguel, for publicly performing conducts of affection. Although there is controversy as to the nature of the conducts, since the alleged victim argues that his expressions limited to “physical proximity and romantic looks”, representatives of the supermarket argued that it included caresses, hugs and kisses, which would result in an affectionate manifestation of the alleged victim and his couple. The Commission observes that, according to evidence provided by the supermarket throughout the proceeding, the supervisor of the venue, the chief of maintenance, security guards and police interceded to make the alleged victim and his couple cease such conducts. The IACHR deems this as proof that the alleged victim was subject to an interference on his private life. 47. On the other hand, the IACHR remarks that, according to the report of the Chief of Prevention of Losses of the Shopping Center, the alleged victim was asked to cease his affectionate conducts considering that a customer had complained that two masculine people “were committing acts of homosexuality” since they were kissing and caressing, which disturbed him for being accompanied by his underage children. Likewise, the Supermarket pointed out in its reply to the complaint that the claimant had caused incidents in other stores and that the categorization of each conduct corresponds to the place and moment in which it is performed and to morals and good manners imposed by the community. Finally, the Commission notes that on August 17, 2004 the alleged victim attended another commercial center of the same company, along with a heterosexual couple and again performed affectionate conducts, however, only the alleged victim and his couple were called upon for performing such conducts. The IACHR considers that this proves that the alleged victim was subject to a distinction of treatment based on expressions of his sexual orientation. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. General Observation No. 24. UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/24, August 10, para 39. Likewise recalls that the third pillar of the Ruling Principles on Business and Human Rights refers to the access to resources and effective reparations. See Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Human Rights matters and transnational companies and other companies, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31, March 21, 2011, principle 25. 47 IHR Court. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Reparations and Costs. Sentence of November 26, 2002. Serie C No. 96, para 58. 48 IACHR. Business and Human Rights: Inter American Standards. OEA/Ser.L/V/II IACHR/REDESCA/INF.1/19 November 1, 2019, para 181, 193, 194 and 196. 46 15