3 12. She argues that, at the time of the events, she was elected for a position in the Directive of the National Association of Officials and Employees of the Judiciary (ASONAL Judicial) and, therefore, she filed a trade union immunity action before the Seventh Labor Court of Cartagena, that is, she asserted her right to not be fired or transferred because she was holding a position of union leadership. She claims that the trial court ruled against her and, in the course of the appeals process, there were several unwarranted delays that prevented the celebration of the hearing. Ultimately, on September 22, 2010, the Labor Chamber of the Superior Court of Bolivar upheld the trial court judgment, which found that the legal requirements for her to be granted trade union immunity had not been met. 13. She affirms that she then filed a second special action for constitutional relief (tutela) with the Sectional Council of the Judiciary of Bolivar seeking protection of her rights to due process, equal protection, family and to a living minimum wage. She claims that the Council decided to grant her protection of her rights and reinstate her in the Department of Magdalena. However, she states that the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney appealed the decision and the Superior Council of the Judiciary of Bogota, on September 7, 2005, overturned the tutela on the grounds that the moving party had been reinstated for the same rights that she had attempted to protect before the Superior Court of Justice and, therefore, the Superior Council considered her action irresponsible and ordered her to be investigated for allegedly committing the crime of false testimony. 14. Lastly, the petitioner claims that she has sent letters to the Attorney General of the Nation, who responded that it is not a matter within his competence. Additionally, she notes that her children sent a letter to the President of the Republic bringing the situation of her being a mother, who is head of household to his attention, and the Office of the President replied that the matter was not within its competence. 15. As for the allegations of law, she contends that the State violated Article 8 of the Convention because due process was not followed in removing her from office and, even though it was her career, the decision rendering her appointment null and void was not grounded in any reason, and her special status and of her family were not taken into account. Regarding Article 19, she argues that as a consequence of the loss of her job, her daughter asked the university for a discount in the cost of tuition and her daughter had to work to afford to study. With regard to Article 24, she claims that the State did not recognize her right to reinstatement in the tutela actions, even though in other analogous cases, it was applicable. As to Article 25, she contends that she was denied the right to a simple and prompt remedy as relief against acts that infringe her rights. 16. Regarding Article 26, she claims that it was violated in light of the economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the “Protocol of San Salvador,” which recognizes the right to have a dignified job that is commensurate with her individual, family and life condition; to food for herself, her children and her mother, as well as the rights of her youngest daughter, as a child, and of her elderly mother, who passed away in September 2005. As for Article 29 of the Convention, she argues that the State has interpreted in a restrictive way the rights recognized in the Convention during the proceedings that gave rise to the petition. Citing several international instruments and conferences for the protection of women’s rights, the petitioner contends that her condition as a women was not taken into account by the State in any proceeding. 17. She claims that her matter goes beyond strictly property issues and involves judgments of domestic courts, which were issued outside the bounds of due process, and other decisions that violate rights protected in the Convention. Additionally, she contends that there was unwarranted delay in the labor jurisdiction, since the appellate court ruling was postponed six times. B. Position of the State 18. The State’s account of the facts is similar to petitioner’s statement with regard to the administrative rulings that led to her dismissal and the results of the different court proceedings. It claims