59 “decided to voluntarily issue Decree 364 […].” The charges were determined the conduct of the alleged victim to be a very serious offense for the degree of culpability, as he was the Mayor of Bogota and because they were 60 of social importance given that “the use of land is an issue that affects “the general conglomerate.”” 103. In the context of the proceedings, the alleged victim filed a series of requests for dismissal. He particularly stated that he had the power to issue Decree 364 pursuant to Article 12 of Law 810 of 2003, because on June 7, 2013, the Project of Agreement 118, which had proposed modifications to territorial planning, was “not approved.” He stated that the natural and obvious meaning must be given to the words “not 61 approved” in Article 12 of Law 810 of 2003, i.e. it must mean “not agreeing with the project.” Likewise, he argued that there is no typical conduct, and that even though such classification is open in the disciplinary field, the existence of a disciplinary offense must be unequivocally stated, which had not occurred in this case, where there are other legal and reasonable interpretations of the norms invoked.62 2. Suspension of Decree 364 by the State Council 104. On March 27, 2014, the Chamber of the Contentious-Administrative of the State Council decreed the provisional suspension of Decree 364, considering that, while the Mayor has the power to exceptionally modify the Guidelines of Territorial Planning, “this is only possible when the Council does not adopt any decision on the Agreement Project for revision, in the sense of approving or rejecting it in a timeframe of 90 calendar days, which did not happen sub lite, because, as seen, the Edilicea Corporation of Bogota decided against Agreement Project 118 of 2013, and, thus, the Mayor could not adopt it via a Decree.” 63 3. Sanctioning decision of sole instance 105. On June 27, 2016, the Inspector General of the Nation declared that “the stages within the disciplinary process” had been exhausted and issued a decision of sole instance deciding “TO SANCTION Mr. GUSTAVO FRANCISCO PETRO URREGO (…) for the serious offense, with malice, to TWELVE MONTHS OF SUSPENSION AND SPECIAL DISQUALITIFICATION for the same period, in accordance with the considerations of this office.” Likewise, he decided “NOT TO RE-INSTATE the decision of March 30, 2016, which resolved a request for nullification by the representative of the disciplined, warning that administrative recourses cannot 64 proceed against this decision.” 106. On the other hand, the Inspector General qualified the offense as serious, taking into consideration “the level of culpability,” and “the hierarchy and the position of the public servant,” as the District Mayor of Bogota, “which must generate in the administration an example of the compliance with the constitutional, legal, and regulatory provisions comprising the legal system,” as well as “the social transcendence of the offense,” referencing with respect to the latter “land use […] that affects the collective in a 65 general way.” Thus, it decided to impose the sanction of twelve months of suspension from the position and 59 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. 60 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. 61 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. 62 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. 63 State Council, Administrative Chamber, Decision of March 27, 2014. 64 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. 65 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, p.78. 19