79. Following the above-described decision, the alleged victim filed a petition for reversal, requesting that the judgment be revoked and, additionally, that the Inspector General refrain from imposing sanctions that would contravene Article 23 of the American Convention. 80. With respect to the first charge, he maintained that he had not participated in the precontractual stage or in the contractual activity that led to the administrative implementation of the “cero trash” (basura cero) public policy, and that his actions did not result in any detriment to the public or disregard State contracting principles. 81. In relation to the second charge, he stated that Decree 564 of 2012 seeks to comply with the orders of the Constitutional Court. Finally, in relation to the third charge, he stated that he did not commit the attributed offense. Finally, he stated that the “Office of the Inspector General does not have competence to restrict, limit, or suspend the exercise of political rights of a popularly elected public servant.”34 82. On December 31, 2013, the alleged victim requested that certain assessments be performed, including: i) in relation to Decrees 564 and 570 of 2012, “to request the State Council to list the number of decrees, of this rank or of national order, declared null because of illegality or unconstitutionality in the last (20) years; and ii) that the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation certifies in how many of these proceedings or in how many motu proprio did it advance sanctioning proceedings; and in how many or in which did it issue a sanction and what type of sanction was imposed;” likewise, he requested the testimony of epidemiology experts to explain potential risks to the human health that could be caused by the alleged trash crisis of 18, 19, and 20 of December, 2013. 35 83. On January 13, 2014, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation rejected the requested assessments “given the extemporaneous nature of the requests and the absence of the need to undertake them” considering that “the undertaking of assessments during the trial stage is during the proper procedural opportunities (término de traslado) […];” and that “if this was regarding assessments derived from other assessments undertaken during the trial, the adequate procedural opportunity lasted until concluding arguments were made, because then it could have been reasoned why it 36 was necessary to undertake other assessments to resolve some issues that eventually were not clarified […].” He added that “the possibility of undertaking assessments after issuing the judgment of first or sole instance follows an oficiosa power, circumscribed by the need to resolve some issue that could substantially change the 37 merits of the matter.” 84. In the same decision, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation, through the two Procurators appointed and that issued a decision on December 9, 2013,38 overruled 39 the reversal petition, confirming the judgment of sole instance. 85. In relation to the first charge, it was stated that “it is true that the Mayor of Bogota did not have direct participation in the precise activities that comprised the pre-contractual and contractual stages of the two inter-administrative contracts, for instance, in the drafting of the studies and very specific activities. 34 Annex 2. Decision on the petition seeking reversal of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, of January 13, 2014, p. 71. Annex 2 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 35 Annex 2. Decision on the petition seeking reversal of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, of January 13, 2014, p. 50. Annex 2 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 36 Annex 2. Decision on the petition seeking reversal of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, of January 13, 2014, p. 50. Annex 2 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 37 Annex 2. Decision on the petition seeking reversal of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, of January 13, 2014, p. 50. Annex 2 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 38 Según consta la decisión fue emitida por el Procurador Primero Delegado Juan Carlos Novoa Buendía y el Procurador Segundo Delegado ad hoc Carlos Arturo Ramírez Vásquez. 39 Annex 2. Decision on the petition seeking reversal of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, of January 13, 2014. Annex 2 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 15