38. On that same date the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation issued another resolution in which it ordered the “transfer, as of November 2 of this year, YENINA MARTÍNEZ ESQUIVIA … Delegate Prosecutor before the Criminal Judges of Circuit No. 16 of the Unit of Crimes against the Public Administration to the Sectional Unit of Prosecutors of Providencia-Sectional No. 50,” taking into account the request of the Sectional Director of Prosecutors of Cartagena. 11 39. As appears in the record, the alleged victim filed a tutela action against the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation with the aim of protecting “the rights to free association, to work, to the vital minimum, to health, to life, and to special protection for women heads of household” and asked to be reinstated, and for recognition and payment of the salaries no received from the date of her removal up until her reinstatement.” 12 40. On February 25, 2005, the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cartagena denied the tutela action filed by the alleged victim. Among its considerations, the Court considered that: The party filing the tutela action cannot claim by the residual and subsidiary mechanism of the tutela to have the administrative act that relieved her of her duties as Delegate Prosecutor before the Criminal Judges of the Circuit of the Sectional Bureau of Prosecutors of Cartagena, which she held, annulled, insofar as that administrative act enjoys a presumption of legality that the law recognizes for such acts, since the legal review of such acts corresponds to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, and not to the constitutional tutela judge, as the moving party claims. 13 41. Subsequently, the alleged victim filed a second tutela action, arguing the violation of the rights to equality, due process, a vital minimum, and the family. 14 42. On July 26, 2005 the Sectional Judicial Council of Bolívar granted the tutela sought by the alleged victim and ordered the Attorney General to reinstate her within 48 hours. Among its considerations: The respondent entity – OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE NATION – violated the fundamental right of due administrative process in respect of Prosecutor YENINA MARTÍNEZ ESQUIVIA, as it was shown that the moving party had been serving in a career-service position on a provisional basis, that she was relieved of her duties by resolution No. 001048 of October 29, 2004, an administrative act that did not state reasons, without the Office of the Attorney General having given sufficient reasons, to this day, for the removal of said officer. In addition, the vital minimum of the moving party and her family is compromised, for it should be borne in mind that she was a woman head of household… 15 43. On September 7, 2005, the Superior Judicial Council decided to overturn the tutela ruling of July 26, 2005, arguing the existence of threefold identity of claims, parties, and facts with the first tutela filed, and ordered a criminal investigation into the alleged victim for abusive use of the tutela action. The Council considered: Annex 8. Resolution 2215 of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, October 29, 2004. Annex to the initial petition of December 22, 2005. 12 Annex 9. Decision of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cartagena, February 25, 2005, denying the tutela action brought by the alleged victim. Annex to the initial petition of December 22, 2005. 13 Annex 9. Decision of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cartagena, February 25, 2005, denying the tutela action brought by the alleged victim. Annex to the initial petition of December 22, 2005. 14 Annex 10. Decision of the Sectional Judicial Council of Bolívar, July 26, 2005, granting the tutela action filed by the alleged victim. Annex to the initial petition of December 22, 2005. 15 Annex 10. Decision of the Sectional Judicial Council of Bolívar, July 26, 2005, granting the tutela action filed by the alleged victim. Annex to the initial petition of December 22, 2005. 11 6