State presented additional observations on February 23, 2015 and July 18, 2016. All observations were duly forwarded to the opposing party. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioner 7. The petitioner indicates that, on August 17, 1997, various communications media published an “illegal recording” obtained by unknown persons of a conversation between the alleged victim, then Minister for Communications, and Rodrigo Villamizar Alvargonzález, then Minister for Mines and Energy, about the granting of a radio station broadcast license. He states that this illegal material provided the basis for criminal proceedings against him given that, on August 20, 1997, the Office of the Attorney General opened a preliminary investigation against him on an ex officio basis. On August 21, 1998, since the petitioner and Rodrigo Villamizar were both government ministers, they were charged before the Criminal Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Criminal Division”) with the crime of unlawful interest in a public contract. Subsequently, on May 14, 1999, the Criminal Division declared the proceedings against Rodrigo Villamizar null and void because it considered him to have acted in a private rather than ministerial capacity, which meant that it did not have the special jurisdiction established in Article 235 of the Constitution. 8. On October 25, 2000, the Criminal Division sentenced the alleged victim to a principal penalty of 54 months in prison, 15 monthly legal minimum wages, and disqualification from public office for the length of his prison term. In response, as there was no possibility of appeal, the petitioner lodged a tutela action [action for protection of constitutional rights] with the Sectional Council of the Judiciary of Cundinamarca (hereinafter “the Sectional Council”), which was denied in a judgment issued on December 1, 2000. The alleged victim lodged an appeal with the Superior Council of the Judiciary (hereinafter “the Superior Council”), which on February 1, 2001, upheld the contested decision, thereby denying the requested protection. 9. Subsequently, in a judgment of March 6, 2002, the Constitutional Court upheld the decision of the Superior Court of the Judiciary, arguing that the recording of the telephone conversation had been barred from evidence by both authorities, the Office of the Attorney General and the Supreme Court of Justice and that the evidence on which the charge and conviction were based came not from that recording but from separate, independent sources. 10. In addition, in the context of disciplinary proceedings also initiated as a result of the illegal recordings, the alleged victim indicates that the Administrative Tribunal of Cundinamarca reversed two rulings against him that had been issued by the Office of the Inspector General. In his opinion, this voiding of administrative sanctions is further evidence of his innocence and proves that the criminal conviction against him is unjust. 11. Furthermore, the alleged victim states that he lodged three actions for review that were rejected, as described below. a. First action for review 12. In the context of a tutela action, the investigation proceedings against Rodrigo Villamizar were voided by Constitutional Court judgment T-058/2006. According to the petitioner, this circumstance constituted new evidence of his innocence. Accordingly, he lodged an action for review of his conviction with the Criminal Division. However, it was rejected in a decision of December 5, 2007, which indicated that the aforesaid ruling in the tutela action did not terminate the criminal investigation or absolve Rodrigo Villamizar of criminal responsibility but merely invalidated the proceedings so that they could be reinitiated in accordance with internal procedures. 2