from office based on alleged irregularities committed during the issuance of the Decree of the Guidelines of Territorial Planning. They stated that, according to the Office of the Inspector, the alleged victim used an inadequate procedure to approve said plan and disregarded the applicable rules, which confer power on the municipal and district councils to regulate land use. 17. Moreover, they stated that the Director of Fiscal Responsibility and Coactive Jurisdiction of the Comptroller’s Office of Bogota D.C. (Directora de Responsabilidad Fiscal y Jurisdicción Coactiva de la Contraloría de Bogotá D.C.), issued Resolution 01 on June 27, 2016, which contained a determination of fiscal responsibility against the alleged victim and other persons “for the tariffs of the Transmilenio S.A. public service,” and imposed a fine of $217,204,857,989 (USD 71,677,603). They stated that this fine was the result of the reduction in the tariff of Transmilenio. 18. The petitioners stated that on July 15 and 16, 2016, nullification requests were made against the above decision. These requests were denied on July 25, 2016. They also noted that a new nullification request was made on July 27, 2016 and that it was denied on August 3, 2016. 19. They stated that, later, the alleged victim lodged reversal petitions, which were denied on October 27, 2016. Likewise, he filed appeals, also denied on November 29, 2016. 20. The petitioners stated that the sanctions imposed on the alleged victim would prevent him from running for office as President of the Republic in the upcoming election on May 27, 2018, despite having a lot of public support according to polls. 21. The details of the facts and proceedings shall be referred to in the Commission’s factual analysis, based on the information provided by both parties. This section contains a summary of the main legal arguments made by the petitioners during the merits stage. 22. The petitioners argued that the State violated the political rights in relation to the obligation of domestic legal effect because Article 227(6) of the Constitution recognizes the power of the Inspector General to discipline public officials and provides for “removal from office.” They added that, likewise, Article 44 of the Single Disciplinary Code considers disqualification from office as a disciplinary sanction. They maintained that inter-American standards require that a restriction on political rights determined by a competent judge and by means of a criminal proceeding. 23. The petitioners added that the sanctions imposed on the alleged victim would result in his “political death.” In relation to his disqualification, which is currently suspended, they stated that if it is implemented, considering his age, the alleged victim would never be able to be elected to public office. Concerning the fiscal sanction, the petitioners stated that the amount is unpayable and places the alleged victim on a debtors list, which prevents him from taking any public position. They argued that recently a criminal law amendment was approved which considers as a crime the act of being elected for a position whilst being disqualified by judicial, disciplinary, or fiscal decision. They highlighted that this would prevent participation in the presidential elections of May 27, 2018. 24. Likewise, they argued a violation of the right to equal protection, considering that the disciplinary proceeding against the alleged victim by the Inspector General of the Nation “has been the result of a discriminatory action for political views alternative to the dominant ones.” They stated that the conduct of the then-Inspector was biased against public officials who held different political views, and, on the other hand, that he was lenient towards officials with “parapolitical” links. They stated that the religious and political views of the Inspector General affected the impartiality of his actions in the disciplinary proceedings. 25. They asserted that the State had violated the right to a fair trial and judicial protection in conjunction with the duty to respect rights and equal protection, because the process brought against Mr. Petro by the Office of the Inspector General failed to comply with the international obligations of the State. 3