11 with the health services provider if he was left without any income as a result of his partner’s death; and (v) access to the survivor’s pension would enable him to receive the health services he required.12 Mr. Duque also alleged that the substitute pension should be granted to a homosexual person and that the refusal to recognize a same-sex partner’s right was in violation of the right to life, the right to equality, the right to constitute a family, the right to free development of one’s personality, the right to social security, the prohibition against degrading treatment, freedom of conscience, cultural diversity and human dignity.13 48. On June 5, 2002, the Tenth Municipal Civil-Law Court of Bogotá denied the tutela action brought by Mr. Duque. After analyzing the laws in force, the judge held that [...] the party seeking tutela does not meet the requirements that the law prescribes to be the beneficiary of a survivor’s pension and that no legal provision or case law has recognized this right in the case of homosexual couples; this is a fact of life, yet homosexual couples are waiting for the day when lawmakers legislate this right into law, as they did in the case of de facto marital unions. [...] The Court concludes, therefore, that the action is out of order for this reason and because the matter with which the party seeking tutela takes issue can be resolved through the judicial processes prescribed by law (the contentious-administrative avenue) and/or by filing petitions for reconsideration and appeal, within the legal timeframes, to challenge COLFONDOS’ decision of April 3, 2002. The conflict that the party bringing this action exposes is statutory in nature and a tutela action cannot be used to have the right to the pension recognized. This must be done through ordinary proceedings, if that right is to be ultimately recognized. […] The respondent party’s refusal is in no way perceived as a violation of any of the rights that the party bringing the action invokes, since its decision more than conforms to the law; it is elementary application of legal and constitutional norms and thus does not recognize rights not given either in law or the Constitution. To do otherwise, to fail to observe those norms or to accede to the request made of it, would be to violate the Constitution and the law. On these grounds, the petition seeking amparo relief will be denied, but not without advising the petitioner that if it is also his intention to obtain some kind of social security health service, he can turn to the public health institutions created for the purpose of protecting persons who 14 do not have any financial resources; a case in point would be the program that SISBEN offers. 49. Mr. Duque challenged the court’s ruling. The Twelfth Civil Court of the Bogotá Circuit upheld the ruling, in its entirety, on July 19, 2002. The Twelfth Court wrote that No violation of fundamental constitutional rights was committed. What is more, this was an attempt to obtain, by means of constitutional amparo, protection of eminently property-related rights. Constitutional amparo cannot be either sought or granted with respect to social benefits, 12 Annex 7. Tutela action filed with the Bogotá Superior Court, Civil Chamber, April 26, 2004 (Annex 4 of the original 13 Annex 7. Tutela action filed with the Bogotá Superior Court, Civil Chamber, April 26, 2004 (Annex 4 of the original 14 Annex 8. Tenth Municipal Civil Court of Bogotá, Judgment of June 5, 2002 (Annex 5 of the original petition). petition). petition).