4 give effect to the rights recognized in the American Convention; instead, they must also put those measures into practice. 16. The petitioners underscore the close interrelationship between the right to life and the right to one’s physical, mental and moral integrity, and the right to the preservation of health. The petitioners contend that the State’s refusal meant that for some periods of time, Mr. Duque was without the protection he needed to treat his serious physical and emotional condition as a person living with HIV, thereby putting his right to life in jeopardy. 17. As for the right to personal integrity, the petitioners contend that by denying the alleged victim his legitimate right to a survivor’s pension and thereby leaving him unprotected given that he had been reduced to a subsistence living, with no income and no job, the State placed Mr. Duque’s physical and mental health in grave danger. Specifically, the petitioners state that Mr. Duque suffered very difficult days because his access to medical treatment was uncertain and “for a period of time he was without any medication.” Furthermore, according to the petitioners, the denial of his legitimate right to a survivor’s pension because of his sexual orientation, which left him unprotected, created in Mr. Duque a sense of injustice and even greater stigmatization, as well as mental suffering and anxiety. The petitioners underscore the fact that the lack of certain access to prompt and adequate medical assistance is just one of the numerous consequences of the discrimination evident in this case, as it adversely affects —in every respect— the quality of life, one’s physical integrity, the right to develop one’s personality without interference and the right to a decent life. 18. As for the treatment received, the petitioners point out that the denial of the survivor’s pension meant that Mr. Duque moved from having the benefits provided by the contributor-based social security health system —with which JOJG was enrolled while alive— to the subsidized system, whose benefits were 50% less. They point out that having lost health coverage by virtue of his permanent partner’s death and being denied the survivor’s pension and other social benefits, and given the urgent need of maintaining the life-sustaining medical treatment that someone living with HIV requires, Mr. Duque had to obtain, by his own means, the resources needed to be able to remain enrolled with EPS. However, according to the petitioners, the fact that Mr. Duque obtained access to medical assistance by his own account, does not mean that he is guaranteed permanent medical assistance and under the conditions necessary due to the development of HIV. The petitioners therefore contend that the pension substitution will ensure Mr. Duque the conditions he needs to be assured proper medical treatment. 19. As for the principles of equality before the law and non-discrimination, the petitioners allege that the basic principle of equality and non-discrimination has become part of the jus cogens and that “sexual orientation” is a category protected under the American Convention and is one of the prohibited grounds for discrimination. The petitioners underscore the fact that the prohibition of discrimination for reasons of sexual orientation is not limited to civil and political rights, but extends as well to ESCR. 20. The petitioners state that in the instant case, Mr. Duque met the requirements set forth in the 1993 Law 100 to qualify for the survivor’s pension as JOJG’s permanent partner, inasmuch as: (i) JOJG enrolled in a pension system; (ii) JOJG made the necessary payments for over ten years; (iii) while enrolled in the pension system, JOJG died from AIDS; and (iv) his nuclear family was his permanent partner, Mr. Duque. Even so, Mr. Duque’s application was denied because in Colombia there is no law on the books allowing a same-sex partner to succeed to a survivor’s pension.