26.
The petitioners added that the disciplinary proceeding against the alleged victim lacked
adequate guarantees for impartiality, the presumption of innocence, right to counsel, evidence, and review.
They stated that the Inspector General decides on reversal petitions, and, thus, there is no second instance.
Likewise, in relation to impartiality and the presumption of innocence, they stated that, since charges were laid
against the alleged victim, there were attempts to impugn and qualify his conduct as a Mayor, such as
“improvisation” or “lack of planning,” that undermine the presumption of innocence and call into question the
impartiality of the disciplinary authority.
27.
Finally, the petitioners alleged a violation of the right to humane treatment. They asserted
that the arbitrariness of the disciplinary proceeding against the alleged victim affected his and his family’s
moral integrity and that he has been a victim of constant personal attacks and threats, and constant
stigmatization promoted by the Office of the Inspector General. They also noted persistent risks to the alleged
victim’s life and personal integrity, which led to the IACHR to grant precautionary measures in his favor.
B.
The State
28.
The State did not submit any observations on the merits. Therefore, the present section is
based only on the arguments it made during the admissibility stage as these may concern the merits.
29.
The State alleged that in December 2012, the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation
received “multiple complaints” against Mr. Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego, related to the provision of the
public sanitation services in the city of Bogota.
30.
The State mentioned that on January 16, 2013, based on the Single Disciplinary Code, the
Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation (Sala Disciplinaria de la Procuradoría
General de la Nación) ordered the initiation of a disciplinary investigation against the alleged victim in
relations to his conduct as the Mayor of Bogota.
31.
The State also observed that the Disciplinary Chamber decided charges against Gustavo Petro
for three violations of the Single Disciplinary Code on June 20, 2013, and on December 9, 2013, the
Disciplinary Chamber issued a decision of sole instance declaring the disciplinary responsibility of the alleged
victim for contravening Articles 31, 60, and 37 of the Single Disciplinary Code. It also stated that the alleged
victim was sanctioned with dismissal as well as a general disqualification from office for 15 years based on
these three infringements.
32.
It stated that on January 13, 2014, the Disciplinary Chamber fully rejected the evidentiary
petitions (peticiones probatorias) submitted by the alleged victim. It also confirmed the judgment of sole
instance on December 9, 2013, and denied a subsidiary petition to withhold the imposition of the disciplinary
sanction.
33.
The State averred that the sanction imposed by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the
Inspector General was the object of various actions of protection that were resolved in the first instance by the
Administrative Tribunal of Cundinamarca and then the Sectional Council of the Judiciary. It stated that after
appeal of these decisions, on March 18, 2014, the Presidency of the State Council announced the approval by
majority of the decision whereby 23 court-ordered protections in favor of Gustavo Petro were revoked.
34.
It asserted that on March 20, 2014, the President of the Republic, by Decree 570 of March 20,
2014, implemented the removal of the alleged victim and appointed Rafael Pardo Rueda as Mayor.
35.
It stated that on April 21, 2014, the Civil Chamber – Land Restitution of the Superior Tribunal
of the Judicial District of Bogota (Sala Civil – Restitución de Tierras del Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de
Bogotá) ordered that the President of the Republic annul Decree 570 and adopt measures to comply with the
precautionary measures adopted by the Commission in favor of the alleged victim. It stated that on April 23,
2014, via Decree 797, the President of the Republic annulled Decree 570.
4