28 application of the respective sanction, according to the result they yield in terms of to the conduct of the officer subject to the proceeding. 104. It is now up to the IACHR to determine whether the punishment of sexual acts between persons of the same sex in the military regime in force at the time of the events meets the tiered proportionality test referred to supra, and thereby to determine whether there is of state responsibility. 105. As regards the first element of the analysis, i.e. the existence of a legitimate end, which in terms of strict scrutiny implies that the objective pursued with the distinction should be a particularly important objective or an imperious social need, the IACHR observes that the Court of Law established that while the Constitution then in force recognized the right to make free decisions on sexual life, the provision of the Rules of Military Discipline that punished “acts of homosexualism” was justified by the “special nature” of the military legislation and the institution, which should be maintained and cultivate values such as honor, dignity, discipline, and extolling civic-mindedness. 106. In this respect, the European Court has reiterated that the restrictions imposed by the regime of military discipline may pursue a legitimate end to safeguard, for example, “national security interests” and “the defense of order,” and that the action of the military authorities must be geared to in that regard to ensuring the operational capacity of the armed forces and “maintaining the morale of the service personnel.”107 107. The IACHR considers that the State has the power to take measures to preserve discipline and order within its armed forces and that maintaining discipline within an armed institution is a legitimate end of the state. The IACHR considers it legitimate, in general, to establish a disciplinary regime in the armed forces that avoids the commission of acts that are an affront to the values of the institution, such as sexual acts. 108. Next, the IACHR will analyze whether the next step of the proportionality test is satisfied, that is, the suitability of the measure to attain the end pursued. For this purpose, it must be examined whether the measure of establishing a sanction of discharge in the legislation and applying it to Mr. Flor for his alleged responsibility in committing “acts of homosexuality” was strictly necessary to attain the end of preserving the values of the armed forces. In this respect it must be observed first that the action of the military authorities was in keeping with the military legislation, which established a sexual act between persons of the same sex as a sufficient condition in itself to separate a member of the institution from his duties and his position. 109. In that regard, the Commission would like to highlight the reasons given by the decision of the Court of Law to assess the application of the Rules of Military Discipline, despite the provision of the National Constitution. The Commission notes as well that the sanction was imposed to Mr. Homero Flor for having “subjectively offended the Armed Institution as such” and having “caused detriment to its reputation and prestige,” bearing in mind that it is made up of “integral, capable, responsible men vested with unblemished moral authority.” Thus, the Court concluded that Mr. Flor had subjectively offended the Armed Institution, tarnishing its image and prestige, and causing a scandal and a bad example both in the military and in the civilian population. 107 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Perkins and R v. United Kingdom, Applications Nos. 43208/98 and 44875/98, October 22, 2002, final decision of January 22, 2003, para. 67 (free translation by the IACHR).