12 which are rights whose immediate source is the law; hence, it is only logical that such rights should be accorded only to those who satisfy the requirements that the law prescribes. Following this line of reasoning, the social security institution was quite right to deny the substitute pension request made by the citizen who brought the tutela action, since the survivor’s pension is intended to protect the family and, as it is now defined in our milieu, the family is formed by the union of a man and a woman, the only beings capable of preserving the species through procreation. Thus, a homosexual union of a man with a man or a woman with another woman does not, in itself, constitute a family. The intimate relationship that can exist between same-sex 15 couples is one thing, but the relationship that forms a family is quite another. 50. The tutela case file was referred to the Constitutional Court on August 26, 2002, but was not selected for review.16 D. Subsequent case law of the Constitutional Court 51. The Commission has already acknowledged that between 2007 and 2008, Colombia’s Constitutional Court granted same-sex couples the same pension benefits, social security benefits and property rights as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Similarly, in 2009 Colombia’s Constitutional Court decided to amend 42 provisions appearing in some 20 laws, to provide same-sex civil unions the same rights that cohabitating heterosexual unions enjoy.17 The Commission pointed out that “[a]lthough the Colombian Constitution and Colombia’s laws recognize the rights of LGBTI persons and provide for a number of remedies, access to those remedies and their effectiveness are limited in practice by the discrimination that LGBTI persons have traditionally experienced.”18 52. Specifically, with regard to the pension right, in 2007 the Constitutional Court held that homosexual couples’ lack of protection in the property area and the system regulating “de facto marital unions” was discriminatory in that it applied exclusively to heterosexual couples and excluded homosexual couples. Addressing this situation, the Constitutional Court found that there was a “protection deficit” regarding access to the survivor’s pension in the case of homosexual couples.19 The Court also held that the social security health services system under the contribution-based regime also allowed coverage of same-sex couples; in their case, the same mechanism should be used to verify their status as surviving partner and the permanence of their relationship.20 53. In 2008, the Constitutional Court ruled that there was no justification to authorize discriminatory treatment whereby persons who were in homosexual relationships could not have access 15 Annex 9. Twelfth Civil Law Court of the Santa Fe de Bogotá Circuit, Judgment of July 19, 2002 (Annex 6 of the original petition). 16 The petitioners’ observations of February 9, 2012; the State’s observations of January 31, 2006. 17 IACHR, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2011, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 69, December 30, 2011, Chapter IV. Colombia, par. 143. 18 IACHR, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2011, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 69, December 30, 2011, Chapter IV. Colombia, par. 144. writing). 19 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-075/07, February 7, 2007 (Justice Rodrigo Escobar Gil writing). 20 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-811/07, October 3, 2007 (Justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra