26 incompatible with the terms of Article 8(1) of the ACHR and constituted a violation of the right of access to justice. 95. The Commission has established that Mr. Duque was a victim of discrimination based on sexual orientation by virtue of the law that made him ineligible for the survivor’s pension of his deceased permanent partner. Likewise, as observed in the preceding paragraphs, the Commission considers that by their decisions, the judicial proceedings perpetuated the prejudices and stigmatization of same-sex couples by reaffirming a narrow and stereotyped perception of the concept of family, whose sole purpose, the court said, is that of “preserving the species through procreation.” The Commission has already determined that this action and reasoning are incompatible with the American Convention. 96. The Commission therefore concludes that the State violated the right to judicial guarantees and the right to judicial protection, recognized in articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligation to respect rights, stipulated in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ángel Alberto Duque. D. Right to the integrity of one’s person (Article 5(1) of the American Convention), read in conjunction with the obligation to respect the Convention-protected rights (Article 1(1) of the American Convention) 97. Article 5(1) of the American Convention provides that 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 98. The Inter-American Commission has made it abundantly clear that the right to the integrity of one’s person protected by the American Convention and by other international human rights instruments is an expansive one.82 In effect, infringement of this right is a type of violation that has a varying connotation of degree, and the personal characteristics of the alleged victim must be considered when determining whether the integrity of his or her person was violated.83 Moreover, in the specific case of the right to health, the Court has held that the right to the integrity of one’s person is directly and immediately linked to attention to human health and that the absence of adequate medical care can lead to the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention.84 99. The Commission recalls that Admissibility Report No. 150/11 considered the analysis of the right to personal integrity to be secondary in nature in this case and to be contingent on the conclusion reached with respect to the merits of the allegations made with regard to the rights protected under articles 8(1), 24 and 25 of the American Convention.85 In the preceding paragraphs, the 82 See, in general, IACHR, Report No. 49/99, Case 11.610, Loren Laroye Riebe Star, Jorge Barón Guttlein and Rodolfo Izal Elorz, Mexico, April 13, 1999, par. 91. 83 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, par. 127. 84 I/A Court H.R. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, par. 130, citing, inter alia, Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, par. 117; and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, par. 43. 85 45. IACHR, Report No. 150/11, Admissibility, Petition 123-05, Ángel Alberto Duque, Colombia, November 2, 2011, par.