3 forwarded to the petitioner. On July 10, 12, and 20, 2012, the State submitted additional information, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their observations. On July 25 and August 14, 2012, the petitioners submitted additional information and observations, communications that were forwarded to the State. On September 12, 2012, the State filed its response, which was forwarded to the petitioners. 11. By communication of September 7, 2012, the Commission asked the parties to submit an uncertified copy of the record on the administrative procedure known as a summary information proceeding (información sumaria de investigación) that was instituted against Mr. Flor in November 2000, and the Rules of Procedure for summary information proceedings in the Armed Forces, issued by Ministerial Decree 1046, published in General Ministerial Order 240 of December 22, 1993. On September 24, 2012, the petitioners forwarded a partial copy of the administrative record of the summary information proceeding and an uncertified copy of the Rules of Procedure for summary information proceedings in the Armed Forces. On October 11, 2012, the State forwarded uncertified copies of the record and of the Rules of Procedure mentioned above to the petitioners for their information; subsequently, on October 17, 2012, it forwarded them in digital format. On May 10, 2013, Mr. Flor sent a new document in which he alleged a series of impacts on himself and his family stemming from the proceedings conducted by the Ecuadorian Army. On May 13, 2013, the IACHR forwarded this information to the State, and requested that it submit its observations within one month. On August 27, 2013, the petitioner sent additional information, which was forwarded to the State, which was given one month to respond, by communication of September 5, 2013. As of the date of the approval of this report, observations have yet to be received by the State in relation to this new communication from the petitioner. The alleged victim and co-petitioner, Mr. Homero Flor, has reiterated in different communications throughout the proceeding that he would like the IACHR to rule on the merits of the petition. The State also asked the IACHR to rule on the merits. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners’ position 12. The petitioners indicate that Homero Flor Freire was a Military Police official, reached the rank of lieutenant, and remained an active-duty member of the Ecuadorian Army until 2002. They argue that the Ecuadorian military justice authorities brought a disciplinary proceeding against him in which his liability was established for committing an act characterized as professional misconduct, as a result of which he was put on leave for six months, and subsequently discharged and definitively separated from the Ecuadorian Army. The petitioners adduce that the decision that led to the discharge of Homero Flor was based on prejudices that reflect a discriminatory practice or policy enshrined in the military legislation and applied by its authorities, based on the sexual orientation of its members. The petitioners note that Mr. Flor asserts that he is not homosexual, nonetheless they adduce that this discriminatory policy had the effect of violating several of his rights on occasion of the proceeding brought against him. 13. By way of background, the petitioners state that in the early morning hours of November 19, 2000, according to Homero Flor, he went to the Amazonas Military Fort (Fuerte Militar Amazonas), in the city of Shell, province of Pastaza, accompanied by another military officer, after they attended a party held outside the military base. According to them, the person who accompanied him was drunk, which is why Homero Flor decided to move him to his room. Soon after he entered the room, Homero Flor answered the knocking at the door by Major Jaime Suasnavas, who warned him that he was in “serious trouble” and who asked him to turn over his standard-issue weapon. On requesting