6 27. Finally, with respect to the developments in the Constitutional Court’s case law, which the State cites, the petitioners underscore the fact that the supposed existence of ex post facto remedies does not constitute compliance with the State’s obligation to afford effective judicial remedies at the time the human rights violations occur. The petitioners state further that even after more than three years since this petition was filed, Mr. Duque still does have an effective remedy within the domestic legal system to protect his rights, and his attempts to find legal and judicial protection were denied, both in the administrative forum and the judicial forum. B. The State 28. The State does not contest the facts alleged by the petitioners but maintains that it did not incur in any international responsibility with respect to the alleged violations of the rights protected under articles 5, 8(1), 24 and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 29. As for the right to life, the State argues that the facts and rights that the IACHR expressly dismissed in its Admissibility Report ought not to be re-litigated in the merits phase of the proceedings. 30. Concerning the right to humane treatment, the State argues that the circumstances of Mr. Duque’s illness is a separate issue from his request to be recognized as the surviving beneficiary of his partner’s pension. Furthermore, the State alleges that Mr. Duque does not appear to be enrolled with the Social Security Health Services System, neither the contributor-based system nor the subsidized system. However, his ability to obtain a pension aside, he has special protection needs given his health condition; needs that the State can provide for through internal mechanisms that Mr. Duque has not yet tapped. The State mentioned that it has afforded Mr. Duque access to the social security health services system to receive the proper treatment for his illness, even though he does not have the resources needed to pay to enroll with a health care provider. 31. The State also claims that the petitioners have not proven the violations they allege, as there is no record that would show that Mr. Duque did not have access to the medications he needed to treat his illness. Given the circumstances, the State argues, the idea that Mr. Duque is unable to get the medical treatment he needs is merely an unsubstantiated hypothesis. The State also contends that the fact that Mr. Duque is not in the contributor-based system, cannot per se be a violation of the criteria established by the ACHR. 32. As for the principles of equal protection of the law and non-discrimination, the State contends that there is no violation of Article 24 of the ACHR since, with the progress made in the law to benefit the LGBTI community and the rulings of the Constitutional Court, the State has gradually succeeded in protecting the right of LGBTI couples to social security, while observing the non-regression clause. Specifically, the State observes that the current laws and rules have evolved since the time the petition was presented back in 2005, to make them conform to the requirements established in Article 2 of the ACHR. Thus, the State argues, there is no violation of Article 24 of the ACHR, because the advances made in the protection of ESCR are covered by the principle of progressive realization, which recognizes that full satisfaction of these rights cannot be guaranteed immediately and prohibits any regression in the progress achieved.