6. Based on the analysis of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2)(h), 23(1), 23(2), and 25(1) of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1), and 2 of the same, to the detriment of Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego. The Commission also issues corresponding recommendations. II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ON THE MERITS A. The petitioners 7. The petitioners affirmed, by way of context, that Gustavo Petro has had a political career since 1981, holding various positions of popular representation. The petitioners stated that he presented himself as a candidate for the Office of the Mayor of the City of Bogota D.C., and that on October 30, 2011, he won the election. 8. The petitioners mentioned that, by Order 275 of 2011, the Constitutional Court declared that the department of the Mayor’s Office of Bogota – the Special Administrative Unit of Public Services (Unidad Administrativa Especial de Servicios Públicos –UAESP) - failed to comply with the orders issued in judgment T724 of 2003, and the general criteria set forth in Record 268 of 2010 related to the duty of UAESP to define a framework of short-term goals with the objective of formalizing and regulating the recycling population of Bogota. 9. The petitioners stated that, with the objective of complying with the above-mentioned order, the Mayor’s Office of Bogota created a public enterprise to take over the provision of sanitation services commencing on November 18, 2012, the date that the concession for this public service held by private operators expired. The petitioners argued that this change had the intent of including the recycling community in the provision of public sanitation services, from which it was historically excluded. 10. The petitioners averred that by mid-December 2012 there was a collapse in the collection of refuse which occurred during the transition between the public and private services. They stated that this occurred after the private operators refused to return trash-compacting vehicles and other equipment, despite being legally bound to do so by the concession contract. 11. The petitioners stated that, as a result of the above, criminal and disciplinary investigations were initiated against the alleged victim. In relation to the criminal proceedings, they stated that it became publicly known on November 21, 2014, that the Prosecutor’s Office intended to close the criminal investigation due to a lack of merit. 12. With regard to the disciplinary proceeding, they stated that, on January 16, 2013, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation issued a decision to open a disciplinary investigation against the alleged victim for three breaches of the Single Disciplinary Code. 13. The petitioners communicated that, on December 9, 2013, the Office of the Inspector General declared that the alleged victim was responsible for serious contraventions of subsections 27, 31 and 60 of Article 48 of the Single Disciplinary Code, and imposed a sanction of dismissal and a general disqualification from office for a period of 15 years. 14. The petitioners indicated that the alleged victim filed a petition against the above decision seeking its reversal, which was rejected on January 13, 2014, and confirmed the original decision. 15. The petitioners mentioned that on March 28, 2014, the alleged victim lodged a nullification and reversal petition against the decisions of December 9, 2013, and January 13, 2014, and, on May 13, 2014, the State Council provisionally suspended both decisions pending its review of the merits. 16. The petitioners said that, on June 27, 2016, the Inspector General of the Nation issued a second sanction against the alleged victim, which consisted of a 12-month suspension and disqualification 2