13 to the survivor’s pension under the same conditions that applied in the case of heterosexual couples.21 Thereafter in 2011, the Constitutional Court held that the fact that one member of a same-sex couple died before notification of Judgment C-336 of 2008 was not an acceptable reason to deny the surviving member the survivor’s pension.22 Likewise, the Constitutional Court concluded that there were no constitutionally valid grounds to find that it was reasonable to give same-sex couples only one method of proving that their union was permanent, when the system in the case of heterosexual couples offered such couples five different ways to prove that their relationship was permanent when adjudicating legal effects in the matter of pensions. Those five alternatives were: (i) a public deed executed before a notary; (ii) a record of settlement; (iii) a court ruling; (iv) the principal’s registration of his or her partner with the respective pension administrator, and (v) any other proof allowed by law.23 54. The Commission has already applauded the advances in the Colombian Constitutional Court’s case law intended to guarantee the rights of LGBTI individuals and couples, one such right being access to pension benefits in the case of same-sex couples.24 However, the Commission must reiterate that these recent advances in case law began in 2007, and thus came well after the facts of this case, and even after the petition was filed with the IACHR.25 Therefore, while the Commission recognizes that certain aspects of the case may have evolved over time; its analysis must focus on the alleged victim’s situation and the alleged violation of rights in his case. V. THE LAW A. Preliminary considerations 55. Before embarking upon an analysis of the parties’ allegations in light of the provisions of the American Convention, the Commission recalls that in its Admissibility Report 150/11 dated November 2, 2011, it concluded that the information presented by the petitioners did not tend to establish a violation of the right protected under Article 4 of the ACHR, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. While in the merits phase the petitioners continued to make allegations pertaining to Article 4 of the ACHR, and both parties submitted arguments regarding Article 26 of that instrument, the Commission finds no reason to deviate from its admissibility decision and, therefore, the analysis of the merits will be done based on the rights recognized in articles 5, 8(1), 24 and 25 of the ACHR, read in conjunction with the obligations established in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 21 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-336/08, April 16, 2008 (Justice Clara Inés Vargas Hernández writing). 22 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-860/11, November 15, 2011 (Justice Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto wring). 23 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-860/11, November 15, 2011 (Justice Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto writing). See also, IACHR, Report No. 150/11 (Admissibility), Petition 123-05, Ángel Alberto Duque (Colombia), November 2, 2011, paragraphs 34-37. 24 See, inter alia, IACHR, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2011, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 69, December 30, 2011, Chapter IV. Colombia, paragraphs 143 and 144; Press Release 89/13, IACHR acknowledges recent steps taken by several OAS Member States to further equality for LGBTI persons, November 21, 2013. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2013/089.asp. 25 See, I/A Court H.R. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, par. 33.