indicated that the Court ruled against her on December 13, 2006; accordingly, she appealed the ruling that same day, and the Superior Court of Bolívar, which heard the appeal, confirmed the judgment of first instance on December 22, 2010, four years after it was filed. 15. The petitioner further noted that she also filed two tutela actions. The first was before the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cartagena, seeking protection of her right to association, right to work, and other rights, which was denied, as the Court considered that the petitioner was making use of a subsidiary mechanism without having exhausted the regular ones. She added that the ruling was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Justice and that said decision was not selected for review by the Constitutional Court. 16. As regards the second tutela, she indicated that it was filed on July 12, 2005, before the Superior Judicial Council (Consejo Superior de la Judicatura), Cartagena Section; in it she sought protection for her rights to due process, to equality, to the family, and to the vital minimum (el mínimo vital). She indicated that it was resolved in her favor in the first instance, as the Council considered that the lack of reasoning in the act that removed her from her position constituted a violation of due process. She indicated that nonetheless the ruling was challenged by the Office of Attorney General of the Nation and was overturned on appeal by the Superior Judicial Council of Bogotá, which found that the petitioner had already filed a tutela action concerning the same facts, rights, and claims. She indicated that in contrast to the first tutela action, in the second she sought protection for the right to due process. 17. As regards the law, the petitioner argued that the State violated her right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection. As for judicial guarantees, she noted that the duty to state the reasoning of the decision was violated because the act that declared that she was relieved of her duties as prosecutor was not explained, and that this was a guarantee to keep her from being dismissed, in her provisional situation, as per the interests of whoever might be in power at a given moment, compromising the independence and impartiality of her function. 18. Moreover, she argued that the State violated the right to be heard within a reasonable time due to the unjustified delay of the Labor Chamber of the Superior Court of Bolívar in responding to the motion for appeal filed by the petitioner on December 13, 2006, which was resolved four days later, on September 22, 2010, even though it should have been resolved within five days under the applicable domestic legislation,. 19. With respect to judicial protection, she indicated that the State violated this right because she did not have an adequate and effective judicial mechanism for challenging the decision that removed her from her position as prosecutor without any explanation. She added that even though the Colombian Constitutional Court has indicated that the tutela is an adequate remedy for resolving the petitioner’s legal situation, the judges who heard the tutela actions did not follow that precedent and rendered the remedy ineffective. B. The State 20. The State indicated that by Decision No 9 of March 9, 1992 the Superior Court of Bolívar designated the petitioner as the 13th Judge of Criminal Investigation, and subsequently she was designated by the Office of the Attorney General as Sectional Prosecutor. It noted that on February 9, 2002 she was appointed as Sectional Prosecutor No. 16. 21. It noted that on October 29, 2004, the Office of the Attorney General handed down a resolution ordering the petitioner’s transfer, due to needs of the service, to the Sectional Unit of Prosecutors of Providencia, as of November 2, 2004. It added that on that same date the Attorney General of the Nation issued a resolution relieving her of her duties as Sectional Prosecutor No. 16, effective November 4, 2004. 3

Select target paragraph3