effects that exposure to gay lifestyles may have on children.” 60 55. On January 3, 2005, Supermercados Peruanos S.A. filed a brief reiterating the comments contained in its response of October 20, 2004, in which it emphasized that the complainant failed to prove the alleged facts. 61 Likewise, on June 1, 2005, the company filed a new document expanding its defense statement and presenting new evidence and arguments. It stressed that Mr. Olivera had been unable to prove the truth of the facts that were the subject of his complaint and that, on the contrary, the intervention of its staff had been requested by a parent who was accompanied by his children; therefore, the best interests of the children obliged the authorities to take action to ensure their wellbeing and sound development. 62 Reiterating the need to protect the best interests of the child, the expert report prepared - according to the company - by the “prestigious psychiatrist” R.F.A., emphasized the “negative impacts on children that may be caused by situations such as those under discussion in these proceedings.” 63 56. On August 31, 2005, the CPC declared Mr. Olivera’s complaint unfounded, considering that the discriminatory treatment had not been proven, since there was an evidentiary problem with the versions provided by both parties. Consequently, the CPC decided that it should adopt a “prudent attitude in the face of such contradictory facts.” 64 It also considered that it was not possible to evaluate as evidence the video of August 17, 2004, from the television program Reporte Semanal, since it “came from a hidden camera” and showed acts that “had been provoked by the complainant.” 65 57. Regarding the protection of the best interests of the child, the CPC questioned whether there was a “scientific consensus on the consequences of exposing children to homosexual behavior” but considered that they could be negatively affected by witnessing homosexual behavior. In this regard, it stated that: […] the causes of homosexuality (biological or social, or even a combination of both) do not find a consistent and uniform position in the scientific community, but what can be presumed is that the environment is not neutral; that if it does not determine, at least it conditions the psychosexual behavior of individuals, and that there may be a greater influence on children exposed to homosexual conduct. 66 60 Cf. Presentation of the psychiatrist R.F. before the Consumer Protection Commission of INDECOPI, undated (evidence file, folio 1869). 61 Cf. Brief of Supermercados Peruanos, S.A., of December 12, 2004, submitted to the CPC on January 3, 2005 (evidence file, folios 1808 and following). 62 Cf. Brief of Supermercados Peruanos, S.A., of December 12, 2004, submitted to the CPC on May 31, 2005 (evidence file, folios 1818 and following). 63 Cf. Brief of Supermercados Peruanos, S.A., of December 12, 2004, submitted to the CPC on May 31, 2005 (evidence file, folio 1825). 64 Cf. Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), Final Decision No. 1039-2005/CPC, of August 31, 2005, (evidence file, folio 1895). 65 Cf. Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), Final Decision No. 1039-2005/CPC of August 31, 2005, (evidence file, folio 1896). 66 Cf. Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition 20