status until November 4, 2004, when her appointment was rendered null and void. She asserts that while
she served as Sectional Prosecuting Attorney No. 16, she took part in an investigation for the crime of
abuse of authority, which was allegedly committed by the Secretary of the local environmental authority the
Autonomous Regional Corporation of Canal del Dique (Corporación Autónoma Regional del Canal del
Dique or CARDIQUE for its Spanish acronym), who had issued an order granting a trash collection permit
to a company in the municipality of Pasacaballo without fulfilling the requirement of prior consultation with
the afro-descendant communities living in the area. She indicates that, in the context of her investigations,
she received a motion to restore the right [to prior consultation]. The motion was filed by the representative
of the communities, who acted as a civil party in the proceeding, and she vacated the aforementioned order.
She contends that in July 2004, she was entitled to vacation time and during her absence,
the person substituting for her, revoked her decision reinstating the right of the communities settled in the
area to be consulted, and closed the investigation. She states that when she went back to work, the
representative of the Judicial Oversight Ministry (Ministerio Público, as it is called in Colombia) assisted in
filing the motion for revocation of the decisions issued by the replacement Prosecuting Attorney during her
absence. She claims that she was called by the Director of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, who told
her that she should not intervene in administrative proceedings; however, the petitioner indicates that her
proceeding was related to a criminal matter.
She affirms that as a consequence of her investigation, the alleged victim overturned the
proceeding conducted by the prosecutor who replaced her during her vacation. She contends that on
October 20, 2004, she communicated her decision to the director of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney
and that very same day she was denied permission to attend a symposium in Bogota.
She claims that on October 29, 2004, two decisions were issued against her. One decision
was to transfer her to Providencia Island and was made by the Director of the Office of the Prosecuting
Attorney. The other decision rendered null and void her appointment as Sectional Prosecutor No. 16 of
Cartagena and was signed by the Attorney General of the Nation. She notes that she was notified of the
first decision on November 3, 2004, and it was dated effective as of the day before the notification. She
affirms that she was notified of the second decision on November 4, 2004, and it was effective as of that
same day. She asserts that the Attorney General was unaware that she had accepted the office of Sectional
Prosecutor on Providencia Island, when he removed her from her office as Sectional Prosecutor No. 16 of
She argues that after her removal from office, the case relating to the alleged crime of
abuse of authority was transferred to the Office of the Attorney General of Bogota and that the company
ultimately obtained the environmental permit. She affirms that the representative of the communities
affected by the sanitary landfill, who acted as a civil party to the case, was murdered in unclear
She indicates that she has filed several different appeals to be reinstated in her position.
She further indicates that she brought a tutela suit, a special action for constitutional protection, before the
Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cartagena in order to assert her right of association, to work and
to a living minimum wage, in connection with the right to health, life of her children and the protection
required in her capacity as a woman head of household. She claims that on February 25, 2005, the tutela
was denied to her, inasmuch as the judge held that tutela was a subsidiary mechanism and that a regular
proceeding was available for her to pursue her claims. The petitioner challenged this ruling; the judgment
was upheld by the Labor Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and the ruling was not chosen to be
reviewed by the Constitutional Court.
She alleges that she also brought an “action to vacate an administrative act and restore
the right” before the Administrative Court of Cartagena which, on October 14, 2005, found the case
groundless, since it was brought on July 12, 2005, beyond the legal period of four months following the act
that rendered the right null and void. She contends that this was because the attorney who was
representing her did not file the case on time, and she was not able to deal with these legal procedures, as
she was engaged in working to try to support her own family.

Select target paragraph3