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

Select target paragraph3