32 capacity or aptitude of a person to belong to the Armed Forces due to the fact that he or she is gay, lesbian or bisexual or perceived as such. The IACHR notes in particular that the provision of the Rules of Military Discipline that provided for discharge as a sanction for engaging in “acts of homosexuality” equated that same sanction to other conduct that was considered punishable in the Ecuadorian legal order, such as narcotics trafficking, even though homosexuality had already been removed as an offense from Ecuador’s criminal law.120 122. The Commission notes the considerations made by said judicial authority on the nature of the Rules of Military Discipline that “sanction[ed] acts of homosexuality precisely due to the special nature of the military legislation,” arguing that the conduct which it was established that Mr. Flor engaged in was incompatible with the “principles and norms of conduct” of the Armed Forces, on being an “institution that prides itself on being the moral reservoir of society and being constituted by men who are integral, capable, responsible, and with unblemished moral authority.”121 123. In that sense, the IACHR considers that even though it was the Rules of Military Discipline which established a sanction with respect to sexual acts between persons of the same sex, the decision of the Court of Law evidences the existence of discriminatory prejudices by which the aptitude of a person to perform his or her functions within a military institution has traditionally been called into question, on the bases of his or her actual or perceived sexual orientation. 124. Additionally, the Commission considers it important to note that evidence was requested in the disciplinary proceeding to determine whether there was the infraction of the prohibition on engaging in an act of homosexuality, mainly certificates of good conduct of the members of the military involved. The Commission considers that it finds a discriminatory bias in the proceeding itself on attempting to deter a sexual act between persons of the same sex with a certification that appeals to the military officer’s “good conduct” or “bad conduct.” 125. The Commission already referred in the preceding sections to the reasons why it considers that this decision by the Court of Law was incompatible with the American Convention. It only remains to point out, at this stage of the analysis, the determinant effect that a decision had that was adopted without heeding due process guarantees and in a manner incompatible with the right to equality and non-discrimination in the proceeding before the military jurisdiction to order the definitive separation of the alleged victim from his labor activities and in the mechanisms used by him in this jurisdiction to controvert that decision. The Commission notes moreover the importance of the provision of the Rules of Military Discipline that was applied in the instant case, for once the facts were considered shown by the Court of Law, the disciplinary sanction was imposed practically by operation of law, particularly when one considers that it involved the definitive separation of the alleged victim from his functions in the Ecuadorian Air Force. 126. Finally, the IACHR wishes to note that on repeated occasions since 2006 the InterAmerican Court has ruled on the ex officio obligation to review domestic judicial decisions for compliance with the obligations arising under the American Convention, often referred to as “control of conformity with the Convention” (control de convencionalidad). Accordingly, the Court has established: 120 By Judgment No. 111/97, November 27, 1997, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador found article 516 of the Criminal Code on the crime of “homosexualism” to be unconstitutional. 121 Annex 2. Resolution of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone of January 17, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 20, 2002.