6 related to the right to sexual liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution; and that (ii) it did not constitute a crime or a breach under the Ecuadorian Criminal Code. 21. Therefore, they argue that it was imperative that these bodies rule on the legality of the sanction that had been imposed, mindful of the facts that gave rise to the proceeding and the possibility of the State exercising its punitive power over acts related to the exercise of a right protected by the legal order in place. They also argue that this was the only means available to Mr. Flor to challenge the decision that led to his discharge since, as established in the Law on the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, this jurisdiction is not competent to sit in judgment of matters regarding the organization of the Armed Forces, which would apply in this case as it is a proceeding before a Military Court of Law. They argue that the Supreme Court of Justice of Ecuador has ruled in this regard that “the issues that arise in relation to the organization of the Armed Forces do not correspond to the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction.” Thus, they argue that no regular judicial remedy could be brought against the decision of the Court of Law that would allow for a ruling on the merits of the dispute in a District Court of the Contentious-Administrative jurisdiction, accordingly it would not have been possible to secure a judgment of last resort, nor to file a motion for cassation. 22. The petitioners allege that the Rules of Military Discipline applied in this case constitute a legal instrument which while containing provisions aimed at regulating the sexual conduct of the members of the Armed Forces within the confines of a military facility, established differentiated and discriminatory treatment on grounds of sexual orientation, which suggests that the Ecuadorian military legislation then in force criminalized homosexuality. In that regard, they argue that Article 117 of said Rules equated homosexuality with conduct criminalized by Ecuadorian legislation, such as the unlawful use, trafficking, and sale of drugs or narcotics. They argue that in the instant case the military justice system justified the application of the provisions called into question based on the “special nature of the military legislation,” which is based on discriminatory arguments that prejudge the capacity or aptitude of a member of the Army to perform his or her functions based on his or her sexual orientation. They adduce that the provision contained in said article, being a secondary provision, should have been trumped by the Constitution in force at the time, which recognized, as does the current Constitution, the right to equality before the law and the right of a person not to suffer discrimination on grounds of his or her sexual orientation. 23. During the processing of the case in the merits phase the petitioners have continued to present arguments related to an alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention, which was found inadmissible by the IACHR. The petitioners argue that the decision by the Court of Law constitutes an arbitrary interference that violated the alleged victim’s rights to honor and to privacy. In that regard, they allege that the circumstances under which Homero Flor was discharged from the Army had a particularly harmful impact on his professional, family, and personal life, as he was exposed to a social stigma due to his alleged “homosexual orientation,” with which, even though he does not so identify, has resulted in discriminatory treatment that caused the loss of his job and his divorce6. He indicates that in particular it has been impossible for him to find work for the last 12 years, and that it has been impossible for him to make child support payments for his daughter. He attaches a certificate of judicial withholding from the payroll system issued by the Social Security Institute of the Armed Forces, which he indicates show that the monthly child support payments for the daughter of the alleged victim and 6 The IACHR will make no reference to Article 11 in the instant report, as it was already declared inadmissible in the Commission´s admissibility report.