presented a brief with additional information, which was transmitted to the petitioners for their observations. On May 4, 2009, the petitioners presented their observations, which were transmitted to the State for its observations. On June 5, 2009, the State requested an extension, which was granted by the Commission. On June 8, 2009, an amicus curiae brief was received from the Asociación Española para el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, which was transmitted to the petitioners and the State. 6. On July 7, 2009, the State presented a brief with observations, which was transmitted to the petitioners for their observations. On August 14, 2009, the petitioners requested an extension, which was granted by the Commission. On September 14, 2009, an amicus curiae brief was received from the organization Colombia Diversa, which was transmitted to the petitioners and the State. On September 30, 2009, the petitioners presented a brief with observations, which was transmitted to the State for its observations. On November 3, 2009, the State presented its final observations. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners’ position 7. The petitioners argue that on August 4, 1997, Ángel Alberto Duque entered the STDHIV/AIDS Program of the Social Security Institute (ISS: Instituto del Seguro Social) with a diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). They indicate that Ángel Alberto Duque and JOJG lived together permanently, in consensual union, for 10 years and three months until the death of the latter on September 15, 2001, as the result of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). They argue that the alleged victim received economic support from his partner for his personal expenses and health care. They indicate that by means of such support, the alleged victim affiliated with a Health Provider Enterprise (EPS: Empresa Prestadora de Salud) under which he received the services necessary for his health situation. 8. The petitioners indicate that at the time of his death JOJG was affiliated as a worker with the Compañía Colombiana Administradora de Fondos de Pensiones y Cesantías COLFONDOS S.A. (Colfondos). They indicate that after his partner’s death, on March 19, 2002, Ángel Alberto Duque presented a request to Colfondos for them to inform him of the requirements he would have to satisfy to access the survivor’s pension based on his status as the permanent partner of JOJG. 9. They indicate that on April 3, 2002, Colfondos responded to the request for information and indicated that the applicant “does not show the status of beneficiary in the terms of the law so as to be able to access the survivor’s pension and consequently the transaction requested cannot be completed.” Colfondos based its response on the fact that Colombian legislation on social security, specifically Article 74 of Law 100 of 1993, provides that the beneficiaries of the survivor’s are the spouse or surviving partner, yet it indicates that the law establishes that said status derives from the union of a man and a woman, and not from the union of two persons of the same sex. 10. The petitioners argue that in view of the refusal of Colfondos, on April 26, 2002 Ángel Alberto Duque filed a tutela action (special constitutional remedy) to have his right to the survivor’s pension recognized. The alleged victim argued that the recognition of the survivor’s pension implied guaranteeing his access to social security health services. They 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 and indicated that the action is unfounded based on the consideration that the alleged victim’s claim is statutory and that it is not appropriate to have recourse to the tutela action to resolve it, but to a regular (contentious-administrative) action, or to the remedies of appeal (apelación) or reconsideration (reposición), within the legal terms, against the resolution of Colfondos. He 2