25 90. The Commission observes that courts have to take multiple factors into account, one of which is the nature of the legal interest or right at stake. For example, the European Court of Human Rights found that judicial guarantees —specifically the guarantee of a reasonable time period— had been violated in domestic court proceedings involving a person living with HIV, since what was at stake in the contested proceedings was of crucial importance to the petitioner given the nature of his illness; hence, his case called for “exceptional diligence”.79 91. The petitioners observed that the Colombian authorities narrowly interpreted and applied the laws on social security and pension substitution, and the responses to the tutela actions failed to afford due process with the necessary guarantees. The State, for its part, argued that Mr. Duque’s access to justice was in no way restricted; the fact that the decisions of first and second instance did not go in his favor did not mean that due process was denied. It also pointed out that the refusal of the judges presiding over the tutela actions was not because he was homosexual; instead, the State alleged, it was due to the fact that no provision in Colombian domestic law contemplated the situation his case raised. 92. The Commission observes that the judges who presided over the tutela action filed by Mr. Duque expressly stated that tutela was not the proper remedy by which to challenge a provision that excluded him as the beneficiary of JOJG’s survivor’s pension; this was, in the eyes of the court, an “elementary application of legal and constitutional norms.” The State, however, has repeatedly argued to the Commission that “tutela [is the] adequate and effective remedy by which to correct an improper interpretation of the law in force in the area of social security,” 80 since the Constitutional Court has held that “although a survivor’s pension is an economic benefit, it has also been classified as a basic right.”81 93. The Commission must again point out that this case is not about the right to the survivor’s pension per se; instead, it is about the discriminatory nature of the provisions that denied same-sex couples’ access to a survivor’s pension. The purpose of the tutela action was to question the validity of that exclusion, which precluded analysis of the other relevant requirements to qualify for the requested pension. However, the judges presiding over the tutela action neglected their duty to examine the questions put to them and instead narrowed the scope of the tutela, which is contrary to the Convention and to the constitutional case law that the State itself cited. The Commission therefore considers that because of the referral to the ordinary courts and the failure to address the questions raised, Mr. Duque did not have an effective judicial remedy to challenge the rationality, reasonableness and proportionality of the provision that excluded him as a beneficiary of his permanent partner’s survivor’s pension. 94. The Commission also notes that the merits of the tutela action, i.e. justification, rationality and proportionality of the provisions being challenged, were not duly analyzed by the courts; instead, the courts threw them out based on a dogmatic and formalistic interpretation of the provision in force. The Commission also notes that the courts did not examine the set of rights at stake in this case, nor did they take into account the differentiated impact caused by Mr. Duque’s HIV condition. Because judicial decisions must be well founded, the standards applied in the judicial decisions were 79 Cf. ECHR. Case X. vs. France. Application No. 18020/91, March 31, 1992, par. 47. 80 Annex 10. See, inter alia, The Colombian State’s Observations of February 28, 2013, par. 31. 81 Annex 10. See, inter alia, The Colombian State’s Observations of February 28, 2013, par. 35.