8 heard in equal conditions by the competent organs. Finally, the State holds that it has not accepted the truth of the facts, contrary to what the petitioners argue. 29. Finally, the State holds that in a show of good faith it has pursued a friendly settlement in respect of this petition. As the negotiation with a view to reaching a friendly settlement was not fruitful, the State asked the IACHR to proceed to issue the report provided for in Article 50 of the American Convention. IV. ANALYSIS ON THE MERITS A. Facts proven 1. Association of Homero Flor Freire with the Ecuadorian Army and the events of November 19, 2000 30. Homero Flor Freire entered the Ecuadorian Army with the rank of Second Calvary Lieutenant on August 7, 1992.7 In January 2001, he was on active duty with the Army, with the rank of lieutenant; he had been a member of the military institution for approximately 12 years.8 31. Bearing in mind that the parties’ arguments and the documentary evidence produced address a proceeding brought by the military authorities by which the discharge of Homero Flor from the Ecuadorian Army was ordered, the Commission observes first that there is no debate among the parties —and this is deduced from the decisions adopted domestically— that the events of November 19, 2000, at the Amazonas Military Fort, situated in the city of Shell, province of Pastaza, gave rise to the proceeding in the military disciplinary jurisdiction. 32. Second, it observes that the dispute between the parties domestically revolved around the existence of two versions as to what happened that day. Accordingly, on the one hand several military officers stated they had seen Lieutenant Homero Flor and a male soldier having sexual relations in the lieutenant’s room at the Military Fort. Mr. Flor denied the accusation and argued that the soldier had stayed in his room due to his drunken state, there having been no interaction between them. 33. In this respect, the Commission wishes to clarify that it is not a purpose of this report to issue a pronouncement on the truth of these facts as a matter of domestic law. It is up to the IACHR to elucidate whether there was discrimination against the alleged victim in the process of his separation from the armed forces, and to examine whether the summary information proceeding and the subsequent judicial decisions of the domestic authorities triggered the international responsibility of the Ecuadorian State for having applied standards incompatible with the American Convention. Based on these considerations, the Commission proceeds to summarize the relevant judicial decisions, as well as the relevant aspects of the domestic laws and regulations. 2. Summary Information Proceeding brought on November 22, 2000 7 Annex 1. Certificate issued by the Director of Personnel of the Army, February 5, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 30, 2002. 8 Annex 2. Resolution of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone, January 17, 2001. Annex to the initial petition of August 30, 2002.