4 an explanation, Mr. Flor was informed by Major Suasnavas that he had been seen in a “situation of homosexualism” (“situación de homosexualismo”). They allege that in the face of this situation Homero Flor was pressured by other military officials to voluntarily request his retirement from the Army, given that they told him that there were videos and photos that proved the occurrence of “homosexual practices.” They indicate that Homero Flor submitted a report to the military authorities about what happened, and rejected the accusation against him. 14. The petitioners note that a proceeding was brought called an información sumaria de investigación (hereinafter “summary information proceeding”) that was aimed at establishing the existence of a disciplinary infraction and the liability of Homero Flor.2 They indicate that the summary information proceeding is administrative in nature, yet it is conducted before a military authority vested with judicial powers, as established in the Rules of Procedure for Summary Information Proceedings in the Armed Forces (hereinafter “Rules of Procedure for Summary Information Proceedings”)3 then in force. They indicate that the proceeding culminated with the decision of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone (hereinafter “Court of Law”) of January 17, 2001, by which it was concluded that Homero Flor had committed a disciplinary infraction for having engaged in professional misconduct. They argue that based on that decision, on May 7, 2001, the Council of Subaltern Officers of the Army (hereinafter “Council of Subaltern Officers”) placed Mr. Flor on leave prior to his discharge from the active service of the Army. 15. The petitioners adduce that Homero Flor challenged the summary information proceeding, the decision of the Court of Law, and the Resolution of the Council of Subaltern Officers, through the following remedies: (i) request for reconsideration challenging the decision by the Council of Subaltern Officers, which was rejected by decision of the same Council of June 5, 2001; (ii) motion of appeal against the decision of June 5, 2001, dismissed by the Council of Superior Officers of the Army on July 18, 2001;4 (iii) constitutional amparo motion against the summary information proceeding and the resolution of the Court of Law, which was found inadmissible on procedural grounds decision of the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha (hereinafter also “Sixth Court”) of July 18, 2001; and (iv) motion of appeal against the ruling by the Sixth Court, which was found inadmissible on procedural grounds by decision of the Constitutional Court of February 4, 2002. 16. The petitioners present a series of arguments on the merits. First they argue that the proceeding that led to Homero Flor’s discharge from the Army was based on two assumptions, the first Mr. Flor’s alleged homosexual orientation, and the second, engaging in sexual acts within the confines of a military establishment, but with a special emphasis on such acts involving two officers of the same sex. Accordingly, the petitioners raised arguments, first, that go to violations of due process guarantees during the summary information proceeding, and second to the alleged discrimination suffered by Homero Flor, for having been accused of having engaged in sexual conduct with respect to which the military legislation provides for differentiated treatment, incompatible with Article 24 of the American Convention. 2 As indicated, the proceeding was initiated against both Homero Flor and the other military officer involved in the facts. Original petition received at the IACHR on August 30, 2002. 3 Issued by Ministerial Decree No. 1046 and published in General Ministerial Order 240 dated December 22, 1993. Original petition received at the IACHR on August 30, 2002. 4 The petitioners note that according to Article 200 of the Law on Armed Forces Personnel then in force, this resolution had become final and binding. Petitioners’ brief dated April 12, 2004.