5 17. As regards the first point, the petitioners argue that a series of due process violations were committed in the course of the summary information proceeding compromising the rights enshrined at Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention. Specifically they note that the summary investigation proceeding was based on witness statements given by several officers who said they had seen Homero Flor engaging in the alleged disciplinary infraction. In this respect, they argue that during that proceeding Homero Flor was not allowed to confront witnesses who testified against him, nor was his defense afforded the opportunity to question them. 18. On the second point, the petitioners allege that the provision under which Mr. Flor was dismissed –that is, the Regulations of Military Discipline in force at the time– established unequal treatment with a substantial impact on the type of sanction that is applied, when it is found that one has engaged in sexual acts within a military facility. Thus, they argue that when an “illegitimate sexual act” is involved –characterized as an severe infraction (falta atentatoria)– the maximum sanction possible is a 30-day suspension. In this regard, the petitioners state that the notion of “illegitimate sexual acts” apparently refers to heterosexual sexual relations in the absence of marriage, or outside of marriage. They argue that in cases of “acts of homosexuality” –characterized as acts of professional misconduct (Article 117 of the Rules of Procedure)– the sanction to be imposed was to discharge the officer, as in the instant case. On these considerations, the petitioners argued that this distinction is discriminatory since it is based exclusively on the sexual orientation as sufficient grounds for ordering the discharge of a member from the Army.5 19. The petitioners note that the Ecuadorian Constitution then in force established at Article 23(5) the right to free development of the personality, which includes “sexual liberty and equality,” and that the “crime of homosexualism” had been decriminalized in Ecuador by a judgment of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court in 1997. They argue that despite this legal framework being in force at the time the summary information proceeding was being conducted, the military legislation punished homosexuality as conduct itself considered an act of professional misconduct and by virtue of which one could deprive a person of being able to exercise his or her functions as a member of the Ecuadorian Army. They adduce that the decision by the Court of Law stands out for its focus on the type of sexual conduct Mr. Flor is accused of, beyond actually showing that it occurred. They emphasize that in its decision the Court of Law said that the “Rules of Military Discipline … punish acts of homosexuality, precisely because of the special nature of the military legislation.” 20. The petitioners argue that the remedies available in the domestic legal order to challenge the process and the decision that led to the discharge of Homero Flor from the Army were ineffective for remedying the legal situation allegedly infringed, and that they were rejected for reasons that held little weight. They argue that neither the decision of the Sixth Court of July 18, 2001, nor that of the Constitutional Court of February 4, 2002, took a hard look at the application of a discriminatory provision that had substantive effects on the characterization of the conduct of which he had been accused in the summary information proceeding, and whose effect was apparently his termination as a member of the Army. They reiterated that under the legal order in place it was not possible to impose a sanction for the type of sexual conduct Mr. Flor had allegedly engaged in, as it is conduct that: (i) is 5 In addition, the petitioners adduce that according to the Constitution then in force, there was a legal reservation for the establishment of infractions and sanctions; nonetheless, they argue that the Rules of Military Discipline, despite including provisions for punishment, were adopted by the Ministry of National Defense through a Ministerial Decree that is under seal, that was not published in the Official Registry, and which therefore was not available to all citizens.