64. On June 10, 2008, the Superior Court of Lima delivered a ruling in which it declared the complaint unfounded, 78 arguing that “the evidence provided by the appellant [was] not sufficient because it was produced by the appellant himself.” 79 65. The Superior Court’s ruling also noted that Article 7B of Legislative Decree No. 716 required that the burden of proof rest with the party alleging discrimination, so that “if such an act were to occur, the burden of proof would fall on the appellant and, based on the evidence provided, the court has not been convinced,” as there is no evidence to show that the actions of the supermarket's employees were arbitrary. 80 66. In addition, it emphasized that the behavior of Mr. Olivera and his partner took place near the children’s play area and, given that such behavior “goes against the social norms” as do “excessive displays of affection in public between both heterosexual and homosexual couples,” it was important to prioritize the “best interest of the protection of the child” in order not to “disturb their sound psychological and mental development.” 81 E. Appeal to the Permanent Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru 67. On October 1, 2008, Mr. Olivera filed an appeal before the Permanent Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “Permanent Civil Chamber”) against the judgment of the Superior Court of Lima. 68. On June 14, 2010, the Permanent Civil Chamber dismissed his appeal and, as part of its reasoning, stated that “the burden of proof on the existence of unequal treatment corresponded to the affected consumer.” 82 It also decided that “it was not proven” that the appellant was the victim of a discriminatory act and that Supermercados Peruanos S.A. could not be required to prove the existence of an objective and justified cause for the alleged discriminatory treatment, since there was no certainty about the alleged incident, and, moreover, “the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence of the accused establishment should prevail.” 83 78 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Lima, Second Specialized Chamber in Matters, Decision No. 14, of June 10, 2008 (evidence file, folios 66 and subsq.). 79 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Lima, Second Specialized Chamber in Matters, Decision No. 14, of June 10, 2008 (evidence file, folio 69). 80 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Lima, Second Specialized Chamber in Matters, Decision No. 14, of June 10, 2008 (evidence file, folio 70). 81 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Lima, Second Specialized Chamber in Matters, Decision No. 14, of June 10, 2008 (evidence file, folios 68 and 69). 82 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, Permanent Civil Chamber, Decision 2010, (evidence file, folio 74). 83 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, Permanent Civil Chamber, Decision 2010, (evidence file, folios 75 and 76). 23 Contentious-Administrative Contentious-Administrative Contentious-Administrative Contentious-Administrative No. 2145-2009, of June 14, No. 2145-2009, of June 14,