REPORT No. 150/111
November 2, 2011



1. On February 8, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Commission”) received a petition presented by the Comisión Colombiana de Juristas and
Germán Humberto Rincón Perfetti (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging the responsibility of
the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the State,” “the Colombian State,” or “Colombia”) for
the inability of Ángel Alberto Duque (hereinafter “the alleged victim”) to access the survivor’s
pension of his deceased partner, considering that the norms that regulate the right to social
security excluded same-sex couples from that benefit.
2. The petitioners alleged that the State is responsible for violating the rights to life, humane
treatment, judicial guarantees, equality before the law, and judicial protection established at
Articles 4, 5, 8, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the
“Convention” or the “American Convention”) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same
treaty. For its part, the State alleged that the petitioners’ claims are inadmissible since the
petitioners failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 46(1)(a) of the American
Convention. For their part, the petitioners alleged that the domestic legal order does not
provide for such due process of law as to enable Ángel Alberto Duque to obtain effective,
timely, and adequate protection of his rights; accordingly, the exception to the exhaustion of
domestic remedies requirement provided for at Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention,
they argue, applies to his case.
3. After examining the parties’ positions in light of the admissibility requirements set out at
Article 46 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to declare the claim
admissible for the purposes of examining the alleged violation of Articles 5, 8(1), 24, and
25, in conjunction with the obligations established at Article 1(1) and 2 of the American
Convention, and it decided to declare inadmissible Article 4 in conjunction with Article 1(1)
of the American Convention, to notify the parties of this decision, and to order its
publication in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.



4. The IACHR recorded the petition under number 123-05, and, after a preliminary analysis,
proceeded to transmit a copy of the pertinent parts to the State on March 8, 2005, giving the
State two months to present information in keeping with Article 30 of the Rules of Procedure.
On May 11, 2005, the State requested an extension, which was granted by the Commission.
On January 17, 2006, the Commission reiterated its request for information to the State. The
State presented its observations on February 6, 2006, and these were transmitted to the
petitioners for observations. On June 22, 2006, the petitioners requested an extension, which
was granted by the Commission.
5. On August 14, 2006, the petitioners presented their observations, which were transmitted
to the State for its observations. On October 24, 2008, a working meeting was held in the
context of the 134th period of sessions of the Commission. On February 4, 2009, the State

In keeping with Article 17(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Rodrigo Escobar Gil, of
Colombian nationality, did not participate in the deliberations or decision in the instant case.

Select target paragraph3