also indicated that if the alleged victim requires any type of social security in health, he can turn to the program offered by the System for Identification of Potential Beneficiaries of Social Programs (SISBEN) for persons without economic resources, and that based on the statements by the alleged victim, it appears that at present he is receiving health services from the ISS. 11. The petitioners appealed the decision and on July 19, 2002, the Twelfth Civil Law Circuit Court upheld the judgment of first instance. They indicate that the Twelfth Civil Court referred the tutela action to the Constitutional Court for possible review, and as of the date the petition was filed the alleged victim is said not to have received any notice from the Constitutional Court, thus it appears that it was not selected for review. 12. The petitioners argue that Ángel Alberto Duque has had to obtain, on his own account, the resources he needs to remain affiliated with an EPS and maintain the medical treatment he needs. They also argue that Ángel Alberto Duque met the requirements for acceding to the survivor’s pension as spelled out in Law 100 of 1993, except as provided for in Article 47, which provides: “In the event that the survivor’s pension is triggered by the death of the pensioner the surviving spouse or female or male permanent partner [cónyuge o la compañera o compañero permanente] who shall show that he or she was engaged in marital life with the predecessor in title.” In this respect, they indicate that Article 1 of Law 54 of 1990 establishes: “As of the entry into force of this statute and for all civil purposes, a de facto marital union [unión marital de hecho] shall refer to such a union as formed between a man and a woman, who without being married, constitute a permanent and unique community of life. In addition and for all civil purposes, permanent compañero and compañera shall refer to the man and the woman who are party to a de facto marital union.” Similarly they indicate that Decree 1889 of 1994, which partially regulates Law 100 of 1993, provides at its Article 10: “For purposes of the survivor’s pension of the affiliate, permanent compañero or compañera shall refer to the last person, of a sex different from that of the predecessor in title, who has engaged in marital life with him.…” 13. They argue that the circumstances described above constitute violations of the rights to life, human treatment, and equality before the law enshrined in its Articles 4, 5, and 24 in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. They allege that judicial decisions have unjustifiably excluded, Ángel Alberto Duque from his right to social security, specifically the survivor’s pension, discriminating against him based on sexual option. They argue that said exclusion has had an impact on the health of Ángel Alberto Duque and an imminent impact on his life. 14. They argue that the Colombian authorities, based on a narrow interpretation of the relevant provisions, and under statutes that introduce factors of discrimination in relation to same-sex couples, have kept such couples from acceding to the right to the survivor’s pension. In addition, they argue that the judicial authorities did not afford Ángel Alberto Duque an appropriate judicial remedy to protect him when his legitimate right to accede to his partner’s survivor’s pension was repudiated, constituting a violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established at Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 15. In addition, the petitioners subsequently argue that in terms of the advances in the case law in Judgment C-336 de 2008, which recognizes the right to a survivor’s pension for samesex couples, and Judgment T-1241 of 2008, which provides for the possibility of retroactively recognizing the de facto marital union constituted by same-sex couples in order to claim the survivor’s pension so long as one makes a showing of one’s status as permanent partner in such a union, Ángel Alberto Duque “could never meet (some of the requirements) because his partner has died.” 16. As for meeting the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for at Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, the petitioners argue that the actions claiming, calling for recognition of, and securing payment of survivor’s pensions has been restricted in a discriminatory and unjustified manner in favor of heterosexual couples. As a result, they argue that there is no due process in the domestic legal order that enables the alleged victim to 3