Director of the UAESP and the managers of the EAAB, and the Aguas de Bogota company, to 21 sign the respective inter-administrative contracts. 71. In particular, the Chamber stated that the signature of contract 017 of October 11, 2012, violated various principles of State contracting. It also stated that the principle of transparency has been violated because the UAESP did not comply with public bidding rules and chose a company that had no knowledge, experience, or technical capacity. It added that the principle of economy was violated because “they used a direct contracting provision to contract a company without the necessary experience,” and “neither did they carry out the prior required studies to determine that the ideal contractor (sic) and that it 22 met the conditions of experience and technical capacity.” 72. On the other hand, in relation to the inter-administrative contract 0809 of December 4, 2012 signed between EAAB and the Aguas de Bogota company, the Chamber stated that “(…) the endless list of contracts that Aguas de Bogota had to sign to attempt to get the minimum required equipment and the lack of experience, and the financial situation of the company, were the reasons for which it was determined that with the signature of said contract the contracting norms in force were disregarded, particularly, the principle of objective selection, thus placing at risk the continuity of the provision of the public sanitation service in the 23 city of Bogota.” 73. In relation to culpability, it added that the alleged victim “acted voluntarily and with knowledge of the facts and the illegality of his conduct, and more so, because in many of his explanations he stated that one of the reasons behind his decision was to break the cartel formed by a group of contractors, a reason that did not bear any relationship to the contractual norms in force and the guarantee of the provision 24 of the public sanitation in the city of Bogota.” 74. On the other hand, in relation to the second charge, and consistent with the disciplinary offense provided in subsection 60 of Article 48 of the Unified Disciplinary Code, the Chamber stated that the conduct is typical because said article establishes that it is a very serious disciplinary offense for a public servant to use the powers inherent in his job or function for another end than that provided for in his mandate, and in the present case: The Mayor of Bogota used the norms of the legal system to issue administrative acts related 25 to public sanitation and to violate the principle of freedom of enterprise, […].” In particular, it recalled that, according to Article 333 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, “free 26 economic responsibility is a right of everyone, entailing responsibilities.” It added that in the present case, “the principles of public service such as objectiveness, legality, and impartiality were seriously undermined due to the adoption of a sanitation scheme for the City of Bogota outside of the legal system (legality) and which resulted in the violation of the principle of freedom of enterprise, preventing other companies, different from the entities of 21 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 447. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 22 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 447. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 23 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 454. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 24 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 459. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 25 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 459. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 26 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 463. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 13