7 co-petitioner have been withdrawn directly from the alleged victim’s father, Lt. Col. Lino Homero Flor Cruz, since 2009. 24. In addition, the petitioners allege that the family members of the alleged victim – some of whom are said to work for the Army or other state organs have been subject to offenses and insults, mainly in the workplace, due to the circumstances in which Mr. Flor was discharged, and also in retaliation for having decided not to continue pursuing a friendly settlement, a process that had been initiated in country. In particular, they indicate that his family members were subject to discrimination and harassment when their ties to Mr. Flor became known, considering that the reasons why Mr. Flor was discharged were generally known. They mention that his family members affected by these events are his father (Lino Homero Flor Cruz), his mother (Germania Freire Silva), his sister (Ximena Flor), his brother (Alejandro Flor), his aunt (Ivonne Freire Silva), and his daughter (Paola de los Ángeles Flor). 25. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners argue that on having adopted “a discriminatory military legal regime,” the State breached its general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, in relation to the right contained in Article 24 of the same instrument. They argue that the States cannot limit the rights of a person based on sexual orientation. In that regard they allege that in the instant case the restriction on the alleged victim’s rights occurred due to the application of a legal regime that was inherently discriminatory and that left Mr. Flor without equal protection before the law. Accordingly, the petitioners asked the IACHR to proceed to issue its decision on the merits, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention. B. The State’s position 26. The State adduces that the petitioners’ arguments address the application of a provision that is no longer in force in the Ecuadorian legal order, thus it is a matter that has already been resolved in the domestic legal system. Specifically, the State forwarded a copy of the Rules of Military Discipline in force since 2008, by which the 1998 Rules, applied in the instant case, were derogated. In this respect, the State controverts the petitioners’ argument on the effects that the decision by which Mr. Flor was separated from the Ecuadorian Army continue to have, indicating that the amended Rules apply to the future, and that the State cannot bear objective liability for the effects of the rules applied prior to the amendment. 27. In the instant case, the State has also argued that the separation or discharge of an active member from the Armed Forces is an administrative act, in keeping with Article 86 of the Law on Armed Forces Personnel. It adduced that if there is a claim related to the illegality of this act, it could be challenged before the respective Council of Officers, or also that it was possible to turn to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction to present a challenge before the District Courts with jurisdiction, and, if appropriate, in the context of the contentious-administrative proceeding, the motion of cassation was also available and could be adequate for challenging the judgment handed down by the District Courts. 28. The State has also held that the constitutional amparo proceeding was resolved lawfully and in keeping with the requirements of due process, thus the State has not violated Article 8(1) of the Convention, and that the alleged victim had free access to the judicial apparatus and to all available remedies to bring his claims for alleged violations of rights established in the Convention. It added that in the domestic proceedings Homero Flor was able to exercise his right to defense at all times, and was