6.
The petitioner indicated that on March 9, 1992, she was designated as the 13th Judge of
Criminal Instruction in Mompox, department of Bolívar, and subsequently, on July 1, 1992, she was
incorporated to the staff of the Office of the Attorney General as a result of the change in the Colombian
criminal justice system by virtue of which the courts of criminal investigation became part of the Office
of the Attorney General. She indicated that on February 8, 2002, she was appointed on a provisional basis
as Sectional Prosecutor No. 16 of Cartagena in the Unit of Crimes against the Public Administration.
7.
She said that while she was in that position she pursued a criminal proceeding for the
criminal offense of breach of public duty, for an action taken, against the Secretary of the Regional
Autonomous Corporation of the Canal del Dique, who had granted a license for trash collection to a
construction company in violation of the legal requirement of prior consultation with the Black
communities in settlements in the zone in which the construction of the sanitary landfill was planned.
8.
She also stated that in exercising her powers she handled the request for reestablishing
the right of the representative of the Black communities who was the civil party in the proceeding and
voided the administrative act that authorized the operation of the sanitary landfill.
9.
She said that in July 2004 she made use of her vacations and that the person designated
by the Director of the Office of the Attorney General as her temporary replacement proceeded
immediately to revoke the measure that reestablished the right of the Black communities, and to close
the criminal investigation into the criminal offense of breach of public duty before all of the evidence was
collected.
10.
She said that when she was reincorporated to her position the representatives of the
Black communities and the Public Ministry requested revocation of the resolutions issued by the interim
prosecutor. She indicated that after this, she received a call from the director of prosecutors, who told
her that as prosecutor she should not get involved in administrative cases such as the case in question,
and the director reminded her of the case of the other prosecutor who had taken cognizance of the
proceeding and who, for not following instructions, was removed from his position. The director of
prosecutors also told her that that message came directly from the Attorney General of the Nation.
11.
She said that despite that call she proceeded to revoke all the actions of the prosecutor
who replaced her while she was on vacation and that as a result the director of prosecutors and the
Attorney General took reprisals against her.
12.
In particular, she indicated that on October 29, 2004, two simultaneous resolutions
were handed down that negatively impacted her, one ordering her transfer to the Colombian island of
Providencia, to work as sectional prosecutor, signed by the director of prosecutors, and another
declaring that she was relieved of her duties as 16th Sectional Prosecutor of Cartagena, signed by the
Attorney General of the Nation, a resolution that had no explanation. She said that she received notice of
the resolution transferring her on November 3, 2004, and the one removing her from the position of
prosecutor on November 4, 2004, such that she was removed from a position she no longer held, as the
second decree took effect the day after she was appointed Sectional Prosecutor of the island of
Providencia.
13.
The petitioner indicated that she pursued a series of judicial actions to be reinstated in
her position as 16th Sectional Prosecutor of Cartagena. In particular, she indicated that on July 12, 2005,
she filed an action for nullity and reestablishment of her rights against the act that removed her from her
position, before the Administrative Tribunal of Cartagena. The action was dismissed on grounds that it
was filed after the time for doing so had lapsed.
14.
She said that subsequently she filed an action in the labor union jurisdiction (acción de
fuero sindical) before the Seventh Labor Court of Cartagena, arguing that when she was removed from
her position she was aspiring to become a director of the National Association of Officers and Employees
of the Judicial Branch (Asociación Nacional de Funcionarios y Empleados de la Rama Judicial). She
2