3 [could] not be completed.” Specifically, COLFONDOS based its reasoning on the fact that Colombian legislation on social security, namely Law 100 of 1993, provided that the beneficiary of the survivor’s pension would be the surviving spouse or permanent partner, which would preclude the union of two persons of the same sex. 11. The petitioners argue that articles 47 and 74 of 1993 Law 100 provide that “should the survivor’s pension be triggered by the pensioner’s death, the surviving spouse or permanent partner must prove that he or she was living in marital union with the predecessor in title.” However, according to the petitioners, permanent partner does not include same-sex couples because Article 1 of Law 54 of 1990 provides that “once the present law enters into force, and for all civil effects, a de facto marital union shall be the union between a man and a woman who, without being married, enter into a permanent and exclusive community. Also and for all civil effects, a partner or permanent partner shall be understood to be the man or woman who is half of the de facto marital union.” The petitioners also point out that Decree 1889 of 1994, which partially regulates Law 100 of 1993, provides the following in Article 10: “[f]or purposes of the enrollee’s survivor’s pension, the permanent partner shall be the last person of the opposite sex to the enrollee, who has lived in marital union with him or her […]”. 12. The petitioners assert that in view of COLFONDOS’ refusal, on April 26, 2002 Mr. Duque filed a tutela action (a special constitutional remedy) to have his right to the survivor’s pension recognized, inasmuch as he was JOJG’s permanent partner. The alleged victim argued that in his case the recognition of the survivor’s pension would guarantee him access to social security health services. The petitioners indicate that on June 5, 2002, the Tenth Municipal Judge for Civil Matters denied the tutela action based on the same arguments as those put forth by COLFONDOS. The judge wrote that the action was unfounded based on the fact that the alleged victim’s claim was statutory and that the tutela action was not the proper means to resolve it; instead, he should have taken his case to the ordinary (contentious-administrative) courts or filed an appeal or sought reconsideration (reposición), within the legal timeframes, to challenge COLFONDOS’ decision. The petitioners also point out that the ruling of the Tenth Municipal Civil Court stated that if the alleged victim required some type of social security health services, he could apply to the program offered by the System for Identification of Potential Beneficiaries of Social Programs (SISBEN) for persons without economic resources; the ruling went on to say that from the claims made by the alleged victim, it appeared that at that time he was receiving health services from the ISS. 13. The petitioners state that Mr. Duque appealed the decision of the Tenth Municipal Civil Court but that the decision was upheld on July 19, 2002 by the Twelfth Circuit Civil Court, using the same arguments. According to the petitioners, the Twelfth Civil Court referred the tutela action to the Constitutional Court for review, and it was not selected. The petitioners therefore allege that Mr. Duque has had to obtain, by his own account, the funds necessary to be able to remain enrolled with the EPS and keep up the medical treatment he requires. 14. The petitioners contend that these acts constitute violations of the rights protected under articles 4, 5(1), 8(1), 24 and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 15. Concerning the obligations to respect and guarantee human rights, the petitioners allege that the State must organize its apparatus to guarantee and ensure enjoyment of the internationally protected rights and freedoms. Here, according to the petitioners, the State’s obligations are not limited to the simple, formal adoption of the legislative, administrative or judicial measures necessary to

Select target paragraph3