58. The Inter American Court pointed out in a case in which it was compulsory to unequivocally establish a discriminatory treatment that “in this kind of it is practically impossible for the claimant to prove “unequivocally” a discriminatory treatment 53 . In this sense, the Commission observes, for example, that Directive 2006/54/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes that: The adoption of norms on the burden of proof has a great importance to guarantee the effective respect of the principle of equal treatment. Therefore, as held by the Court of Justice, dispositions are to be adopted to make sure that the burden of proof befalls upon the defendant party when at first sight there has been a case of discrimination, except concerning proceedings in which case the competent Tribunal or national body shall instruct the facts. However, it is necessary to specify that the appraisal of the facts from which the presumption of having committed direct or indirect discrimination still concerns the competent national body, in accordance with national law or national practices. Furthermore, the member States are enabled to introduce, in all phases of proceedings, an evidential regime which becomes more favorable for the plaintiff party54. 59. Likewise, the European Court on Human Rights has stated “that once a claimant has shown a difference in treatment, it is the Government’s duty to prove that it was justified. As for the matter of what constitutes prima facie evidence able to pass the burden of proof to the defendant State, the Court declared in Nachova and others c. Bulgaria that in the proceeding before it there are no procedural barriers on the admissibility of the evidence nor on the predetermined formula for their valuation. In regard to whether statistics can conform proof, the Court, on cases related to discrimination in which the claimants argued a difference in the effect of a general measure or a factual situation, was based on statistics elaborated by the parties to establish an unequal treatment”55. 60. The Commission considers that the high evidential standard imposed by domestic jurisdictional bodies, upon the presence of all proof and abovementioned signs made nugatory the right to effective judicial protection which the alleged victim had. Likewise, it deems that the lack of an analysis of reasonability and proportionality of the interference and distinction of treatment suffered by the alleged victim, conformed the violation to the right to privacy and the principle of equality and nondiscrimination. 3.3. Analysis of reasonable time 61. Finally, it is necessary to assess the allegation by the petitioner related to the extended delay of the proceeding. In this regard, the Commission recalls that article 8.1 of the American Convention sets forth as one of the elements of the due process that courts must decide on cases heard within a reasonable time. In this sense, an extended delay may conform, in itself, a fair trial violation56. In order to determine the reasonability of the time, the jurisprudence of the Inter American system takes into account the following four elements: i) the complexity of the matter; ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; iii) the conduct of judicial authorities; and iv) the affectation generated on the juridical situation of the person involved in the proceeding57. 62. The IACHR takes note that in the present case the complaint was filed on October 1st, 2004 and the alleged victim received a definitive decision on the cassation remedy on April 11, 2011, which is more than 6 years after filing the initial complaint. As for the first element, the Commission underscores that the case did not the good or service. Should the supplier prove the existence of an objective and justified cause, it is responsibility of whomever claims such fact, to prove that this is really a pretext or simulation to incur in discriminatory practices. For all these effects, it shall be valid to use leads and other substitutes of evidential means. See writ by the petitioner of November 29, 2011. 53IHR Court. Case of San Miguel Sosa and others vs. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Sentence of February 8, 2018. Serie C no. 348, para192. 54Directive 2006/54/CE of the European Parliament and the Council July 5, 2006 concerning the application of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women on matters of employment and occupation. 55 European Court on Human Rights, Case of Beizaras and Levickas vs. Lithuania. Decision of January 14, 2020. 56 IHR Court. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas Vs. Peru. Sentence of November 25,2005. Serie C No. 137, para 166; Case of Gómez Palomino Vs. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Sentence of November 22, 2005. Serie C No. 136, para 85; and Case of the Moiwana Community Vs. Surinam. Sentence of June 15, 2005. Serie C No. 124, para 160. 57 IACHR, Report No. 28/16, Caso 11.550, Admissibility and Merits, Maurilia Coc Max and others (Massacre of Xamán), Guatemala, June 10, 2016. para 145. IHR Court. Case of Massacre of Santo Domingo Vs. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits and Reparations. Sentence of November 30, 2012. Serie C No. 259, para 164. 18