F. Cassation appeal before the Permanent Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice 69. On February 7, 2011, Mr. Olivera filed a cassation appeal before the Permanent Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “Permanent Constitutional and Social Law Chamber”) against the decision of June 14, 2010, of the Permanent Civil Chamber. 84 70. However, on April 11, 2011, the Permanent Constitutional and Social Law Chamber ruled that the appeal was inadmissible, since to examine it would imply “a new evaluation of the evidence, which is incompatible with the purposes of an appeal in cassation.” 85 VIII MERITS RIGHTS TO PERSONAL FREEDOM, PRIVACY, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION 86 71. In the instant case, the Court notes that the alleged initial discriminatory act was committed by a company (that is, by a non-State agent); the Court must therefore examine and, eventually, determine, whether the State was internationally responsible for the administrative and judicial responses provided by the national authorities to Mr. Olivera’s complaint, in which he alleged that on August 11, 2004, he was subjected to discrimination by a company due to his sexual orientation and gender expression. 72. The Court also observes that Mr. Olivera initially had recourse to administrative proceedings, and subsequently went to the courts. In view of this, the Court will first consider the reasoning provided by both instances, analyzing the process as a whole. Furthermore, the Court considers that certain aspects of the reasoning given by the administrative authorities warrant a differentiated and additional analysis of the alleged discriminatory application of stereotypes on sexual orientation and gender expression in those decisions. 87 73. Taking into account the arguments of the parties and the Commission, the Court will proceed to consider the following points: (i) the right to equality and nondiscrimination; (ii) sexual orientation under the American Convention; (iii) standards on 84 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, Permanent Constitutional and Social Law Chamber, decision on appeal CAS. 457-2011, of April 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 78). 85 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, Permanent Constitutional and Social Law Chamber, decision on appeal CAS. 457-2011, of April 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 79). 86 Articles 7, 11, 13, 24, 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 87 In this regard, the Court recalls that, when Article 8(1) of the Convention refers to the right of everyone to be heard by a competent judge or court to “determine his rights”, this expression refers to any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, which, through its decisions determines individual rights and obligations. Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71, and Case of Colindres Shonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 64. 24