20 76. Title XI of the same Rules (general provisions) established that: Art. 117.- The members of the Armed Forces who are surprised in acts or homosexuality or in acts related to the possession, illicit use, trafficking, and sale of drugs or narcotics within or outside of the service shall be subject to the provisions of Article 87(i) of the Law on Armed Forces Personnel, without prejudice to being brought before the regular judges to be tried in keeping with the relevant statute. Citizens who are doing Compulsory Military Service in the Armed Forces and who engage in the acts indicated in the previous paragraph shall be separated from active duty. If the degree of participation of the member of the Armed Forces in said acts is not fully shown, the competent authorities shall order a Summary Information Proceeding. [Emphasis added.] 77. As for the situations in which an active member of the Armed Forces could be discharged, the Law on Armed Forces Personnel (Law 118 of 1991)75 established that: Art. 87.- A member of the military shall be discharged on one of the following grounds: … (i) When in the interest of good service, whether due to the misconduct or professional incompetence of the member of the military, so characterized by the respective Council, in keeping with what was established in the corresponding Rules, when he does not have the right to leave. B. Legal analysis 1. Preliminary Considerations a. On the modification of the Rules of Military Discipline 78. The State argues that the provisions of the Rules of Military Discipline that justified the discharge of Mr. Homero Flor from the Ecuadorian Army have already been derogated. The petitioners allege that the effects of the decision that led to Mr. Homero Flor’s discharge have not been overcome for there has been no pronouncement annulling the discharge, and it has resulted in several violations of the human rights of Mr. Flor. 79. Mindful of the foregoing, the Commission clarifies that what was raised by the State refers to a subsequent modification to the provisions in force at the time of the facts. In similar circumstances, the Inter-American Court has established that … the international responsibility of the State arises immediately when the internationally illegal act attributed to it is committed…. Possible subsequent reparation under domestic legal venue does not inhibit the Commission or the Court from hearing the case that has already begun 76 under the American Convention. 80. Accordingly, the IACHR recognizes the gains made by the State in the legislative arena. Without prejudice to that, the IACHR will analyze the legal instrument in question in relation to its applicability to the facts of the case, and if appropriate it will take into account the subsequent change. 75 Law of Armed Forces Personnel. Law 118. Published in the Official Registry Supplement 660, April 10, 1991. 76 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 75.