21 75. Based on this, the Commission must now assess whether the exclusion of same sex couples from the right to a survivors’ pension pursued a legitimate aim and, if so, whether such restriction complied with the requirements of suitability, necessity and proportionality. 76. In the chapter on established facts, the Commission has shown that the decision to deny Mr. Duque a survivor’s pension as JOJG’s permanent partner was expressly and exclusively based on the fact that they were a same-sex couple. The Commission notes that no other reasons were cited —not in the reply from COLFONDOS,58 not in the tutela action, and not in the case file with the IACHR—. In particular, when confirming the lower-court ruling, the Twelfth Circuit Civil Law Court of Bogotá maintained that the exclusion of same-sex couples was justified based on the fact that the survivor’s pension was intended to protect the family, understood as being “formed by the union of a man and a woman, the only beings capable of preserving the species through procreation.” 77. In this vein, the Commission notes that the reasons to exclude the alleged victim from the right to a survivor’s right, which were given both by administrative and judicial authorities, stemmed from the need to “protect the family”. Preliminarily, the Commission considers that such purpose could, in the abstract, constitute legitimate goals that the State could pursue when restricting rights. 78. However, as for the suitability requirement, the Commission finds that the reasoning offered by administrative and judicial authorities works only if one assumes a narrow and stereotyped understanding of the concept of family, which arbitrarily excludes diverse forms of families such as those formed by same-sex couples, which are deserving of equal protection under the American Convention. In effect, the Inter-American Court has established that “the American Convention does not define a limited concept of family, nor does it only protect a ‘traditional’ model of the family”.59 The Commission considers that there is no causal relationship between the means used and the goal pursued, failing to satisfy the suitability requirement. Hence the other requirements for the legitimacy of the restriction need not be examined. 79. Furthermore, the fact that subsequent case law of the Constitutional Court expanded legal protection to include all types of families shows that there was no reason to maintain that narrow concept of family.60 80. In this connection, the Commission reiterates that the Inter-American Court has established in its case law that it is aware that domestic judges and courts are bound to respect the rule of law, and therefore, they are bound to apply the provisions in force within the legal system.61 But 58 In effect, COLFONDOS’ reply makes it clear that the specific circumstances of Mr. JOJG and Mr. Duque were not examined, since the request was rejected based on the automatic application of the norms in force at the time (articles 47 and 74 of Law 100 of 1993, Article 1 of Law 54 of 1990 and Article 10 of Decree 1889 of 1994), which provided that the only legally recognized civil unions were those between a man and a woman. 59 I/A Court H.R. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, par. 142. See also: ECHR, Vallianatos and others v. Greece, Applications nos. 29381/09 y 32684/09, 7 november 2013, par. 73; Case of P.B. and J.S. v. Austria, Application No. 18984/02, 22 July 2010, par. 30; Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, Application No. 30141/04, 24 June 2010, par. 94. 60 61 See also: ECHR, Kozak v. Poland, Application No. 13102/02, 2 June 2010, par. 99. I/A Court H.R. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 124; I/A Court H.R., Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, par. 173