Public displays of affection of LGBTIQ persons
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 4:58 am
The Court determined that the reliance on these two stereotypes in the domestic proceedings had a detrimental impact on the analysis conducted by the administrative and judicial bodies, leading to an act of discrimination against Olivera based on his sexual orientation. Therefore, the Court concluded that this action violated the obligation of impartiality required by Article 8(1) of the American Convention.
It should be noted that the Court did not identify a violation of the same article concerning the guarantee of a hearing within a reasonable time with respect to the State’s actions. The exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case took 7 years, despite its relatively straightforward nature. However, the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to assert that the Peruvian authorities had acted negligently in their management of the case. This finding was unexpected, particularly considering the Court’s prior identification of negative stereotyping by the authorities, an aspect which appears to have contributed to the length of proceedings.
The Court also identified a violation of Olivera’s right to an effective remedy as guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the American Convention. Although the Court did not explicitly state the reasons for this conclusion, it can be inferred that the presence of the stereotypes not only hindered Indecopi and the judges from acting impartially but also rendered the complaint filed by Olivera against the company ineffective. In other words, the legal proceedings were deemed a “doomed to failure” procedural exercise for Olivera due to the impact of these prohibited stereotypes. This marked the first instance in which the Court found a violation of the right to an effective remedy directly related to the use of negative stereotypes.
Another significant aspect of the ruling is its stance on public displays of affection by LGBTIQ+ individuals. The Court addressed this matter by highlighting that the outward expression of queer affection is safeguarded zalo database by the rights to personal liberty and privacy, as enshrined in Articles 7 and 11(2) of the American Convention. During the hearing, Olivera’s representatives argued that the right to freedom of expression under Article 13(1) of the American Convention was also relevant to this aspect of the dispute, but the Court found that it was not necessary to extend its analysis to this right, as it had done in, for example, in Vicky Hernández.
What is particularly significant is the Court’s assertion that the expression of affection is an integral part of personal freedom, which is understood in terms of autonomy. This ground-breaking concept was first developed in Vicky Hernández, where the Court granted a profound and transcendent guarantee, beyond mere legality, to the visible presence of LGBTIQ+ individuals in public spaces. With this affirmation, the Court clarified that States have not only a special obligation to ensure the participation of LGBTIQ+ individuals in society, but also a responsibility to implement policies that eradicate the contexts of homophobia and transphobia in which discrimination persists. Following this approach, the Court found that the American Convention does oblige States to require businesses to respect the expression of LGBTIQ+ affection.
It should be noted that the Court did not identify a violation of the same article concerning the guarantee of a hearing within a reasonable time with respect to the State’s actions. The exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case took 7 years, despite its relatively straightforward nature. However, the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to assert that the Peruvian authorities had acted negligently in their management of the case. This finding was unexpected, particularly considering the Court’s prior identification of negative stereotyping by the authorities, an aspect which appears to have contributed to the length of proceedings.
The Court also identified a violation of Olivera’s right to an effective remedy as guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the American Convention. Although the Court did not explicitly state the reasons for this conclusion, it can be inferred that the presence of the stereotypes not only hindered Indecopi and the judges from acting impartially but also rendered the complaint filed by Olivera against the company ineffective. In other words, the legal proceedings were deemed a “doomed to failure” procedural exercise for Olivera due to the impact of these prohibited stereotypes. This marked the first instance in which the Court found a violation of the right to an effective remedy directly related to the use of negative stereotypes.
Another significant aspect of the ruling is its stance on public displays of affection by LGBTIQ+ individuals. The Court addressed this matter by highlighting that the outward expression of queer affection is safeguarded zalo database by the rights to personal liberty and privacy, as enshrined in Articles 7 and 11(2) of the American Convention. During the hearing, Olivera’s representatives argued that the right to freedom of expression under Article 13(1) of the American Convention was also relevant to this aspect of the dispute, but the Court found that it was not necessary to extend its analysis to this right, as it had done in, for example, in Vicky Hernández.
What is particularly significant is the Court’s assertion that the expression of affection is an integral part of personal freedom, which is understood in terms of autonomy. This ground-breaking concept was first developed in Vicky Hernández, where the Court granted a profound and transcendent guarantee, beyond mere legality, to the visible presence of LGBTIQ+ individuals in public spaces. With this affirmation, the Court clarified that States have not only a special obligation to ensure the participation of LGBTIQ+ individuals in society, but also a responsibility to implement policies that eradicate the contexts of homophobia and transphobia in which discrimination persists. Following this approach, the Court found that the American Convention does oblige States to require businesses to respect the expression of LGBTIQ+ affection.