27 authorities or individuals, may diminish or restrict, in any way whatsoever, the rights of a person based on his or her sexual orientation. … A right granted to all persons cannot be denied or restricted under any circumstances based on their sexual orientation. This would violate Article 1.1 of the American Convention. This interAmerican instrument proscribes discrimination, in general, including categories such as sexual orientation, which cannot be used as grounds for denying or restricting any of the rights 105 established in the Convention. b. Analysis of the facts of the instant case 101. In the instant case the petitioners argued that the alleged victim was subject to a discriminatory difference in treatment on having been subjected to an investigation aimed at establishing the occurrence of an alleged sexual act with another man, which resulted in him being separated from his duties and discharged from the Ecuadorian Army, all of which is said to have caused a negative impact on his human rights. Similarly, the petitioners adduced that the facts fit in a context of discrimination against military officers due to their real or perceived sexual orientation, based on which an effort was made to punish that orientation and not to regulate their sexual conduct through the disciplinary regime imposed. Based on these considerations, the Commission considers that the matter under study involves aspects that are within the scope of both Article 1(1) of the American Convention and Article 24 of the same instrument, thus the respective analysis will be done in light of both provisions. 102. In the instant case, considering the parties’ arguments, the IACHR will analyze first the right to equality before the law contained in Article 24 of the American Convention, to determine whether the existence of a sanction for sexual acts between persons of the same sex in the domestic military regulations —at the time of the facts— and the application of those provisions to Mr. Homero Flor, which lead to his discharge from military service, triggered the international responsibility of the State. The IACHR will then analyze whether the international responsibility of the State was triggered in relation to the guarantees of due process and judicial protection of Mr. Flor, in view of the obligations to respect and ensure the rights protected in the Convention without any discrimination set forth in Article 1(1). i. The Rules of Military Discipline: Sanction for sexual conduct between persons of the same sex 103. In this respect, the Commission notes first that in general terms, and in keeping with the provisions in force at the time, the conduct of the members of the Ecuadorian Army was subject to a special regulation that required verifying compliance with certain minimal requirements to maintain discipline and order in the institution. Accordingly, the Rules of Military Discipline then in force established that their objective was “to constitute a moral and legal instrument that covers the activities generally of the members of the Armed Forces, to achieve a coordinated multiplication of their energies and obtain, as a result, an institution truly apt for National Defense.”106 Those Rules provided for applying the summary information procedure as a mechanism from which one could determine the 105 I/A Court H.R. Case of Karen Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, paras. 91, 93. 106 Rules of Military Discipline of the Armed Forces of 1998, Prologue.