3 on the part of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone on issuing the resolution [of January 17, 2001] and on not finding the constitutional violation proved by the party bringing the amparo action, this case does not merit the amparo action, and in addition, the requirements indicated by the Law on Constitutional Control have not been met.” 10. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for the violation of the principle of legality and non-retroactivity, established in Article 9 of the American Convention. They allege that the conduct for which Homero Flor Freire was sanctioned was established in Rules adopted by the Ministry of National Defense, and not a law of Congress. 3 They also allege that the State is responsible for the violation of the protection of honor and dignity established in Article 11 of the American Convention to the detriment of Homero Flor Freire, since the false accusation against him had a radical impact on his family life, and led to his divorce. 11. The petitioners allege that neither the Sixth Court for Civil Matters of Pichincha nor the Constitutional Court ruled on the alleged decriminalization of homosexuality ordered by the Constitutional Court in 1997, or on Article 23(25) of the Constitution4, which guarantees sexual freedom and therefore deprives the State of its power to impose sanctions in relation to conduct that may be related to that freedom. They further argue that the alleged victim had indicated on numerous occasions that he is not homosexual and that he did not engage in any of the acts of which he was accused and for which a proceeding was begun against him that resulted in his discharge from active service. 12. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for violating the right to equality before the law established in Article 24 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) of the same treaty, as the Armed Forces of Ecuador maintain a discriminatory policy on considering homosexual conduct itself as “professional misconduct.” They also allege that the discriminatory policy is manifested in the different treatment accorded to heterosexual and homosexual relations within a military facility. They note that Article 87 of the Rules of Military Discipline5 established as a breach in violation of said rules “engaging in illegitimate sexual acts6 within military facilities,” for which the maximum sanction was a 30day suspension. They allege that to the contrary, Article 117 of the same Rules establishes that “the members of the Armed Forces who are surprised in acts of homosexuality or in acts related to the possession, improper use, trafficking, and commercialization of drugs or narcotic substances on duty or off duty shall be subject to the provisions of Article 87(i) of the Law on Personnel of the Armed Forces…,” i.e. would be discharged. 13. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial guarantees established at Article 8(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Homero Flor Freire considering that the procedure of “summary information” to which he was subjected is not a procedure established in the Law but rather in a confidential Ministerial Decision that was not published in the Official Register and therefore is not available to all citizens. In addition, they allege that the State is responsible for violating the right to judicial The petitioners make reference to Article 24 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of 1998: “To ensure due process, one should observe the following basic guarantees, without detriment to others established by the Constitution, international instruments, statutes, or the case-law: 1. No one may be judged for an act or omission that at the time it was committed is not legally codified as a criminal, administrative, or other infraction, no sanction shall be applied that is not provided for in the Constitution or statute. Nor may a person be tried other than in keeping with the pre-existing laws, observing the procedures particular to each proceeding.…” 4 The petitioners make reference to Article 23(25) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of 1998: “Without prejudice to the rights established in this Constitution and in the international instruments in force, the State shall recognize and guarantee the following for persons: … 25. The right to make free and responsible decisions regarding their sexual life….” 5 The petitioners make reference to the Regulation of Military Discipline in force at the time of the faces. Ministerial Decision No 831A, published in the O.G.M. of October 1, 1998. 6 The petitioners indicate that the nature of “unlawful sexual acts” apparently refers to heterosexual sexual relations in the absence of or outside of marriage. 3