67. The Commission notes that throughout the process that the alleged victim maintained that the disciplinary proceeding was retaliation for his political views and ideology and sought to punish him in order to impose the political will of superiors in the hierarchy, and that the outcome had been pre-determined 17 from the outset of the investigation. 2. Sanctioning ruling of sole instance 68. On December 9, 2013, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Inspector General of the 18 Nation, through two appointed Procurators, ruled against the nullification petitions filed by the alleged victim and determined that the three charges brought against him had been proven. It also determined that “as a consequence of the declaration of responsibility for the three disciplinary offenses stated above, to impose as a sanction on the disciplined person DISMISSAL AND GENERAL DISQUALIFICATION for a period of FIFTEEN 19 (15) YEARS, for the reasons noted in the analysis of this decision.” 69. The Chamber considered that the two first offenses were committed with malice, and the 20 third was a very serious offense. 70. In relation to the first charge, the Chamber stated that it was proven that, in the second semester of 2012, the UAESP and the EAAB signed the inter-administrative contract 017 of October 11, 2012, without the latter having the minimum experience and required capacity. In relation to the type of conduct, it stated that: Subsection 31 of Article 48 of the Single Disciplinary Code “determined as a very serious offense, that a public official takes part in a pre-contractual stage or in a contractual activity that disregards the principles regulating State contracting and the administrative function contemplated in the Constitution and the law. In the present case, the signature of the interadministrative contract 017 of October 11, 2012, and 809 of December 4, 2012, signed between the Special Administrative Unit of Public Services (UAESP) and the Water and Sewers Company of Bogota (EAAB) and the Aguas de Bogota company (S.A.E.S.P), respectively, where totally irregular because neither of these two District companies had the required knowledge, experience, and capacity to take responsibility for the provision of sanitation services (…). (…) Mr. GUSTAVO FRANCISCO PETRO URREGO, in the second semester of 2012, and in his position as Mayor of Bogota, and chief of the district administration, took a decision that District companies should take over public sanitation services in Bogota, specifying the development of other vectors that could generate diseases, nor was there concrete evidence of illnesses that took place during that period of time due to the trash in the streets. 2. There was no poor air quality. The quality of the air was permanently monitored and there was control of the drag material and dust, especially, of that generated by the sweep of public roads. They even found that the quality of the air during that time frame in 2012, compared to the same days in 2011, was much better. 3. There was no pollution due to leachate: they are a product of putrefaction and decomposition of waste and require certain conditions to be produced. This because the leachate results of the percolation of water and the pressure on the organic mass followed by decomposition processes that, when being dragged, produce these leachates. See: Annex 2. Decision on the petition seeking reversal of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, of January 13, 2014, p.300. Annex 2 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 17 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, pp. 27, 30 and 70. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 18 According to record, the decision was rendered by the Prosecutor Adjunct First, Juan Carlos Novoa Buendía and the Prosecutor Adjunct Second ad hoc, Carlos Arturo Ramírez Vásquez. 19 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 484. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 20 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 480. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 12