36. The State asserted that, on March 28, 2014, the alleged victim filed an action against the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation before the Administrative Tribunal of Cundinamarca in connection with the administrative acts of December 9, 2013, and January 13, 2014. It mentioned that, on March 31, 2014, the Administrative Tribunal of Cundinamarca, Second Section, Subsection B, transferred the action to the State Council because the latter had jurisdiction. 37. The State maintained that the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the State Council admitted the action on April 10, 2014, and, on May 13, 2014, decreed the provisional suspension of the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Inspector General of December 9, 2013 and January 13, 2014. It stated that the State Council in Plenary affirmed the provisional suspension of the decisions on March 17, 2015, by deciding an appeal for reconsideration filed by the Public Ministry. It further stated that by virtue of said measure issued by the Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Gustavo Petro was reinstated to his position as the Mayor of Bogota. It explained that a decision on the merits was pending in said Chamber. 38. In relation to the law, the State asserted that there had been no violation of political rights or the obligation of domestic legal effect, referencing the power of the Inspector General of the Nation to impose a disqualification sanction does not ignore Article 23(2) of the American Convention and that the Constitutional Court of Colombia has examined said power and determined its compatibility with said instrument. It stated that the sanction is imposed with full respect to the procedural guarantees and after full jurisdictional control over the sanction with the power to nullify it. 39. It stated that the right to judicial protection was not violated because there are judicial mechanisms to appeal disciplinary decisions that affect political rights, such as the nullification and reversal petition before the State Council that allows for provisional suspension of the administrative action when the criteria set forth are met. It added that exceptional actions of protection have been admitted against decisions that impose disciplinary sanctions. III. PROVEN FACTS A. About Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego 40. The alleged victim is currently 57 years old.2 As reported by the petitioners and not controverted by the State, Gustavo Petro has participated in the political life of Colombia since 1981, having been Council Member of Zipaquirá, Member of the House of Representatives for the Department of Cundinamarca, and later on two occasions, for Bogota D.C. In 2006, he was elected a Senator of the Republic. In the elections of 2010, he was a candidate for President of the Republic of Colombia. On October 30, 2011, he 3 won the election for Mayor of Bogota D.C. as part of the Movimientos Progresistas (Progressive Movement). B. About the legal framework relevant to the disciplinary-sanctions procedure 1. The Political Constitution 41. The Political Constitution of Colombia states in Articles 277 and 278 the following: Article 277. The National Attorney General, by himself/herself or through his/her delegates and agents, will have the following functions: (…) 6. To supervise at the highest level the official conduct of those who hold public office, including those popularly elected; exercise on a preferential basis the disciplinary authority; 2Plaza Capital, Journalism and Public Opinion Program Informative Portal, del Rosario University, Profile of the new major of Bogotá. 3 para.8. IACHR, Report No. 60/16. Petition 1742-13. Admissibility. Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego. Colombia. December 6, 2016, 5