The Court emphasized that this standard of proof requires that complainants present evidence they are “materially capable of providing.” This is particularly significant in cases where an The Court suggested inherent imbalance exists between the parties involved! as in situations where a consumer is facing a corporation.

The Court noted that the differential treatment standard of proof cannot be met solely through the victim’s testimony! as it required evidence to be adduced by the complainant that further substantiates a presumption of discrimination. However! the Court introduced nuance to this requirement! stating that in a context where prejudice and structural discrimination against groups persist! administrative bodies and courts should exercise caution.

When dismissing the testimony of complainants

The complainant’s testimony might be sufficient! especially if they belong to groups that face systemic discrimination.

In any case! the Court found that the evidence presented phone number list by Olivera was more than sufficient to prove differential treatment. The Court concluded that the authorities had imposed on him a standard of proof that was unreasonably high and disproportionate. Furthermore! the Court criticised the Peruvian State for not adequately addressing the evidence provided by Supermercados Peruanos! which was clearly homophobic.

According to the Court! once a complainant successfully

Establishes differential treatment! a presumption of discrimination best tools for collecting email addresses arises and the burden of proof shifts to the company to provide rigorous and weighty justification for its actions. If the company fails to provide a convincing argument! the presumption is confirmed! and the case is recognised as one of discrimination. But none of this happened when Olivera filed his discrimination complaint.

Regarding the misuse of “the best interest of the china numbers child” criterion by Supermercados Peruanos and the Peruvian authorities! the Court made it clear that no such objective was at issue in this case. Instead! the intention was to invoke this principle to conceal the discriminatory act against Olivera.