acts of discrimination suffered by consumers in the sphere of private business. Consequently, the Court considers it appropriate to order the State to develop, within one year, a comprehensive educational plan on sexual and gender diversity, equality and non-discrimination, gender perspective and human rights of LGBTIQ+ persons in the area of consumer affairs, which should be incorporated into the regular training courses for administrative and judicial authorities, as well as any other body responsible for ensuring compliance with domestic regulations in this area. Also, in the context of said educational plan, the State must prepare, within one year, a legal reasoning manual on inter-American standards in cases of discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people. 211 The State must submit to the Court an annual report for five years after the implementation of the comprehensive educational plan, describing the actions taken in that regard. 156. In relation to the third recommendation made by the Commission (supra para. 148) and the fourth request for reparation made by the representatives (supra para. 149), the Court considers that the measures adopted by the State in the area of human rights and business represent positive progress in the implementation of due diligence processes by businesses in order to guarantee and respect the rights of consumers. Nevertheless, the Court considers it necessary to adopt specific measures on equality and non-discrimination of LGBTIQ+ people in the area of relations between consumers and private companies. For this, the State must design and implement, within two years from notification of this judgment, a public policy for the purpose of monitoring and overseeing that businesses comply with national legislation, as well as with interAmerican standards on equality and non-discrimination of LGBTIQ+ people. As part of this public policy, the State should require companies to train their workers and partners (including security personnel) in respect for LGBTIQ+ consumers. The State must submit an annual report to the Court for five years after the implementation of the public policy, indicating the actions carried out to that end. 157. Regarding the fourth recommendation made by the Commission (supra para. 148) and the ninth request for reparation made by the representatives (supra para. 149), the Court positively values all the measures adopted to date by the State to promote the ratification of the Inter-American Convention Against all Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance, the signing of which is currently pending congressional approval, in accordance with the Peruvian legal system. Therefore, the Court does not consider it necessary to order the aforementioned measure of reparation. 158. Regarding the third request for reparation by the representatives (supra para. 149) the Court considers that the issuance of this judgment, as well as the other measures ordered, are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations suffered by the victim and does not deem it necessary to order this measure of reparation. 159. Regarding the sixth request for reparation by the representatives (supra para. 149), the Court notes that, in the case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, it ordered the State of Peru to design and implement “a system to compile data and statistics linked to cases of violence against LGBTI+ people, in order to be able to uniformly and accurately assess the type, prevalence, trends and patterns of violence and discrimination against 211 In this regard, the Court identifies as a good practice the “Protocol for Judicial Decision-Making with a Perspective of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics,” prepared by the Mexican Supreme Court. 56