evidence are usually held by the companies themselves. 139 Thus, given the particularly disadvantageous conditions in which discriminatory incidents tend to occur, it is reasonable that the complainant is required to prove only what he/she is able to substantiate. This translates into the obligation of the complainant to provide evidence, and not only the simple assertion of the existence of discrimination, since it must be reflected in a set of facts from which a presumption or appearance of discrimination can be inferred. 140 Consequently, once the victim has presented a prima facie case in which differentiated and discriminatory treatment by a company is proven and such treatment is based on a category protected by Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the burden of proof shifts to the perpetrator - in this case, the company - which must demonstrate that it did not make such a distinction or that, if applicable, there was an objective and reasonable justification for this difference in treatment. 110. The foregoing is in complete harmony with Peruvian law at the time of the facts, 141 as well as with international standards on the matter. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, for example, has also required that national courts reverse the burden of proof in cases of discrimination by third parties. For example, in the case of Grigore Zapescu v. Republic of Moldova, the Committee considered a case of racial discrimination brought before the national courts of the State against a private company, where it determined that, once “prima facie evidence of discrimination” has been established, “the burden of proof regarding the discriminatory intent of the defendant company fell disproportionately on [the plaintiff].” 142 Moreover, Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 24 on State obligations in the context of business activities under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/C.12/GC/24, August 10, 2017, para. 45. 140 In this regard, the expert witness Laura Otero stated that the reversal of the burden of proof is probably the most important aspect in cases of discrimination, due to the “difficulty faced by victims in proving discrimination, not only because they do not have direct evidence, but also because discrimination may be an internal motive in the person who discriminates or the entity that establishes the discriminatory treatment.” Cf. Expert opinion of Laura Otero Norza rendered at the public hearing held on August 24, 2022 during the Court’s 150th Regular Session. 141 At the time of the events of this case, Legislative Decree No.716, Consumer Protection Law, was in force. Compiled as a single text under Supreme Decree 006-2009-ITINCI, Article 7(b), enacted on November 7, 1991, stated the following: Suppliers may not discriminate in any way with respect to customers seeking their products and services offered in premises open to the public. It is prohibited to select customers, exclude people or carry out other similar practices, except for reasons of security of the establishment or the tranquility of its customers or other objective and justified reasons. The burden of proof as to the existence of unequal treatment lies with the consumer concerned or, as the case may be, with the person representing him in the proceedings or with the administration when it acts ex officio. It is up to the supplier of the goods or services to prove the existence of an objective and justified cause. If the supplier proves the existence of an objective and justified cause, it is up to the party alleging such fact to prove that it is in fact a pretext or a simulation to engage in discriminatory practices. For all these purposes, the use of indicia and other evidentiary substitutes will be valid. [emphasis added] 142 Cf. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Grigore Zapescu v. Republic of Moldova, Communication no. 60/2016, CERD/C/103/D/60/2016. Decision of May 31, 2021, paras. 5(3) and 8(1)0. 139 37