the District of Bogota, to provide, after December 18, 2012, and under equal conditions, 27 public sanitation services in the capital city (objectiveness and impartiality). 75. In relation to culpability, it stated that the alleged victim “knew and wanted companies, different from those of the District, to be unable to provide sanitation services in the city of Bogota under equal conditions. To this end, in July and August 2012, he gave precise instructions to the then-manager of EAAB, Diego Bravo. In addition, days before issuing Decree 564 of December 10, 2012, it was known that the district administration would prevent private companies from providing sanitation services, as was known to some 28 witnesses and as it was recorded in the media, given the notoriety of these facts […].” 76. In relation to the third charge, and consistent with the disciplinary offense contained in subsection 37 of Article 48 of the Single Disciplinary Code, the Chamber stated that in the present case “the mayor of Bogota acted outside of his remit and duty by imposing an administrative act that authorized the use of dump trucks for sanitation in the city of Bogota, contrary to existing legislation, particularly provisions of 29 Article 41 of Decree 948 of 1995, and Article 49 of Decree 1713 of 2002.” 77. On the other hand, the Chamber recalled that, according to the expert assessment submitted in the proceeding, “it was determined that there were considerable environmental impacts and threats, because in the city of Bogota between 6.000 and 9.000 tons of solid waste were not collected on 18, 19, and 20 30 of December 2012.” It added that “the occurrence of this incident was mainly due to the authorization by the Mayor of Bogota for the public operator in the new sanitation model to use dump trucks, when the regulations clearly and precisely required compacting vehicles, a situation that was even irregularly extended until the month of July 2013, while slowly and progressively the compacting vehicles were being obtained by the public 31 operator.” It added that the disciplinary offense committed by the alleged victim affected the duty of his function without having demonstrated any reason for it in the proceedings, and that they found no elements to 32 demonstrate that this was malicious conduct.” 78. Finally, with regard to the sanction, it stated that “article 46 of the same regulation provided that general disqualification would be from ten to twenty years, a sanction that would imply a prohibition to hold any charges or position for the term that is determined in this decision in accordance to the grading criteria contained in article 47 of Law 734 of 2002;” and considered that “taking into consideration that Mr. GUSTAVO FRANCISCO PETRO URREGO occupied the high level position of Mayor of Bogota, that in the offenses committed there was knowledge of the illegality, and that with various actions he contravened three dispositions of the disciplinary law, the Chamber shall impose as a disciplinary corrective measure DISMISSAL 33 AND GENERAL DISQUALIFICATION for the PERIOD of FIFTEEN (15) YEARS.” 3. Reversal Petition 27 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 466. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 28 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 469. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 29 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 471. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 30 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 475. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 31 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p475. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 32 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 479. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 33 Annex 1. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, December 9, 2013, p. 481. Annex 1 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 14