In the Olivera Fuentes vs. Peru case, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also analyzed the use of three stereotypes by the administrative authorities that rejected the claim of Mr. Olivera Fuentes. In this blog we will discuss them.
First stereotype
The first stereotype that the Court considered discriminatory was «whether it was justified to demand greater prudence from homosexual couples» in public displays of affection. The Court recalled that there cannot be unequal treatment between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples. For this reason, it concluded that it cannot be required or even considered whether public displays of affection should be different depending on the sexual orientation of the couple.
Second stereotype
The second stereotype that the Court considered discriminatory was the analysis of the Peruvian authorities regarding the purported negative consequences of exposing children to the conduct of same-sex couples. The Court recalled that these types of considerations are homophobic and are based on a pathologization of homosexuality, which is why they are contrary to the equality and non-discrimination principle protected by the American Convention on Human Rights.
Regarding this point, the Court also recalled that, although the principle of the best interest of the child requires legal protection, its protection can never be based on the application of a discriminatory act based on sexual orientation.
Third stereotype
Finally, the Court considered as discriminatory the premise that any manifestation of affection between same sex couples implies an erotic aspect. The Court recalled that this implies the application of a negatively charged stereotype that is not applied to a heterosexual couple.
At CELIG we provide specialized services to the LGBTQI+ community. If you want more information or make an appointment with us, call us at 4800-0248 or write to info@celigcr.com.
We are located in San José, Barrio Escalante.
M.Sc. Ana Isabel Sibaja Rojas
CELIG – Center for Equal Litigation
