22. The State further indicated that the petitioner filed an initial tutela action before the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cartagena, seeking protection for her right to work, right to freedom of association, and other rights, and that it was denied on February 25, 2005, considering that there were other means for annulling the administrative act. It added that the decision was challenged by the petitioner, but the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the decision of first instance. 23. It indicated that on July 12, 2005 the petitioner filed an Action for Nullity of the Administrative Act and reestablishment of the right, in opposition to the resolution relieving her of her duties, and on October 4, 2005, the Administrative Tribunal of Cartagena rejected the action on grounds that it was time-barred. 24. The State said that in July 2005, the petitioner filed a second tutela action before the Sectional Judicial Council of Bolívar to protect her right to due process and other rights, based on the argument that the decision that declared she was relieved of her duties did not state its reasoning. It indicated that in the first instance the Council ruled in favor of the petitioner, thus she was provisionally reinstated, but that on September 7, 2005, the Superior Judicial Council overturned the ruling on first instance, considering that the petitioner had previously filed a tutela action for the same facts and claims. 25. It stated that on February 24, 2005, the petitioner filed a trade union action before the Seventh Labor Court of Cartagena, which denied the action on considering that the petitioner could not bring a claim in the trade union jurisdiction in view of her status as a Delegate Prosecutor. It further indicated that on January 26, 2007 the petitioner appealed that decision, and that the appeal was dismissed by the Superior Court of Cartagena on September 22, 2010, affirming the judgment of first instance. The State indicated that the duration of the proceeding meets the standard of reasonable time, in view of the number of matters before that Court. 26. The State said that the Attorney General of the Nation has the power to remove, at his or her discretion, the officials appointed on a provisional basis, that such acts do not need to state the reasoning, and that they are presumed to be legal. It noted that the presumption of legality may be refuted by the official affected, who may bring an action for nullity of the administrative act before administrative jurisdiction in cases of abuse of authority when the official considers that he or she was removed for reasons other than to guarantee a good service. It added that the alleged victim never proved that she was removed in an act involving abuse of authority in retaliation for her actions in the criminal proceeding against the Secretary of the Regional Autonomous Corporation of the Canal del Dique. 27. As regards the law, the State indicated that it did not violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. It argued that the action for nullity and reestablishment of the right was an adequate and effective remedy that made it possible to review the legality of the administrative act that removed the petitioner, yet that action was rejected in the instant case because it was filed several months after the term established by law. 28. Moreover, it indicated that the tutela action may go forward when what one seeks is the reasoning of the administrative act, yet it is not suitable for attaining reinstatement or the payment of benefits for the official concerned, which was what the petitioner was seeking with her tutela actions. In this regard, it explained that the first tutela action was denied, as it was considered that inappropriate use was being made of said remedy. 29. In addition, it argued that the Superior Judicial Council denied the second tutela action since it was based on the same facts and put forth the same claims. It added that arguing violation of the right to due process did not break the identity between the two tutela actions. 30. The State concluded by indicating that the alleged victim had adequate and effective remedies by which she obtained an in-depth study and expeditious responses to her claims, in keeping with the national legislation. 4