repetition of harmful acts and ensuring the free and full exercise of the rights protected by the Convention. 43 73. In the instant case the IACHR recalls that in the resolution that declared the petitioner relieved of her duties as Delegate Prosecutor before the Criminal Courts of the Circuit of the Sectional Bureau of Prosecutors of Cartagena it was specifically indicated that “no remedy whatsoever against it may be admitted.” Even so, the Commission takes note that the alleged victim made use of judicial remedies in the labor, administrative, and constitutional jurisdictions. 74. With respect to the action for nullity and reestablishment of the right, the Commission takes note that it was filed by the alleged victim after they time for filing had lapsed, and the State indicated that this was the suitable action for annulling an administrative act at odds with the law and attaining the reintegration of whoever’s rights were impaired. Nonetheless, the Commission takes note that as of 2003 some of the case-law of the Council of State has established that "an employee appointed provisionally has no stability whatsoever; accordingly, he or she may be removed without it being necessary to state the reasons,” 44 this being one of the alleged victim’s claims. In view of the foregoing, the IACHR considers that said remedy did not actually address the alleged victim’s claims. 75. The Commission observes that the arguments put forth by Ms. Martínez Esquivia were related to violations of fundamental rights in the context of her being relieved of her duties, which were set forth in the two tutela actions. The first was denied as it was considered that “the administrative act enjoys the presumption of legality that the law recognizes in such acts” and that the legal review corresponds to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. And the second tutela was granted initially, but the ruling was overturned on appeal, as it was considered that it was identical to the first, even though the violation of due process had not been alleged in the first tutela. The Commission further notes that two judges of the Superior Judicial Council cast dissenting votes, one of which referred to the first tutela action, indicated that the argument of that court with respect to there being other mechanisms for judicial defense repudiates the case-law of the Constitutional Court, which has taken cognizance of this type of case. 76. In light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that in none of the legal initiatives taken by the alleged victim did she have an effective remedy to challenge the decision that terminated her appointment as Delegate Prosecutor before Circuit Judges of the Sectional Bureau of Prosecutors of Cartagena and to review the violations of due process, of the freedom from ex post facto laws, and other arguments regarding fundamental constitutional rights that were put forth in these tutela actions. 77. In addition, the Commission notes that one of the arguments put forth by Ms. Martínez Esquivia had to do with the decisions adopted by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation against her having constituted retaliation for a series of acts in her capacity as prosecutor in the context of an investigation she was pursuing into breach of duty. The Commission observes that in the face of that argument the response of the judicial authorities was that the act was covered by a presumption of legality, and that the alleged victim did not succeed in refuting that presumption. On this type of judicial response in the face of an allegation of a possible reprisal or abuse of authority, the Inter-American Court has indicated as follows: 78. While the actions of the state authorities are covered by a presumption of lawful conduct, in cases in which arbitrary action or abuse of authority is argued the authority called upon to oversee that action should verify, by all means available, whether there is a reason or purpose different I/A Court HR, Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, paras. 251-252. 44 Council of State, Second Section, case 76001-23-31-000-1998-1834-01(4972-01), Judgment of March 13, 2003. According to the Colombian Constitutional Court, as of this decision, “this has been the position of the Council of State and based on it administrative acts of such nature have not been annulled when the action for nullity and reestablishment of the right has been used.” See Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment SU-917 of 2010. 43 13