the Nation, which decided not to reverse and, consequently, confirmed the decision of sole 52 instance of December 9, 2013. 96. By virtue of said measure, the alleged victim was re-instated to his position as Mayor of Bogota. The Office of the Inspector General of the Nation filed an application for reconsideration against the decision of May 13, 2014. On March 17, 2015, the Plenary Chamber of the Contentious-Administrative of the State Council dismissed said application and confirmed the decision “that ordered the precautionary measure 53 of provisional suspension of the administrative acts issued.” 97. To date, the request for nullification and the reversal petition has not been resolved. E. About the second disciplinary proceeding 98. According to public information, on August 26, 2013, the Mayor of Bogota decreed the “exceptional modification of the urban regulations on the Guidelines of Territorial Planning of Bogota” through 54 Decree 364. 99. He stated that, according to a Decree of 2004, the exceptional modification of the urban regulations on the Guidelines of Territorial Planning by the Municipal or District Mayor is possible as long as the reasons underlying the modifications are technically justified and demonstrated, and stated that the reasons that motivated the modification are: i) changes in the projection and composition of the population in Bogota; ii) the need to develop impact projects in the mobility of the city; iii) to integrate risk management and adaptation to climate change to territorial planning, incorporating the provisions of Law 1523 of 2012; iv) to harmonize rural land planning with national norms provided in Decree 3600 of 2007; and v) the simplification 55 of regulations. 1. Disciplinary Charges 100. On September 26, 2013, a council member of the District of Bogota denounced the alleged victim before the Inspector General of the Nation asserting that he had exceeded his powers by issuing Decree 56 364. Later, the Regional Chamber of Construction of Bogota D.C. joined the complaint. 101. Based on this, the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the alleged victim for irregularities committed during the issuance of the Decree on the 57 Guidelines of Territorial Planning. 102. On August 10, 2015, the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation laid charges against the alleged victim because “he failed to comply with constitutional, legal, and regulatory norms imposing an 58 obligation to comply with the decision of the District Council,” which denied his project. Nevertheless, he 52 State Council, Contentious Administrative Chamber, Sub-section B, Decision of May 13, 2014. 53 State Council, Plenary of Contentious Administrative Chamber, Decision of March 17, 2015. 54 Decree Law 364 of August 26, 2013, issued by the Mayor of Bogotá. 55 Decree Law 364 of August 26, 2013, issued by the Mayor of Bogotá. 56 Annex 3. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, June 27, 2016. Annex 3 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 57 Annex 3. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, June 27, 2016. Annex 3 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. 58 Annex 3. Final Judgement of the Sole-Instance Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Nation’s Inspector General, June 27, 2016. Annex 3 to the additional observations from the petitioners on the merits of March 9, 2017. He particularly mentioned five laws that had been violated: Article 313 of the Colombian Constitution, Article 12(5) of Decree Law 1421-1993, Article 26 of Law 388-1997, Article 12 of Law 810-2003 and Article 1 of Decree Law 2079-2003. 18