commit the crime of “illicit election of candidates,” which carries a sentence of 4 to 9 years in prison and a fine of 200 to 800 minimum salaries, if he was elected and if the disqualification is validated by the State Council. The Commission highlights that the actions of the state to dismiss and disqualify the alleged victim are particularly grave, which requires a prompt response in light of this situation. 140. Even though the Commission has information indicating that some decisions of the State 99 Council on nullification and reversal actions would permit integral revisions of sanctions decisions issued by the Inspector General of the Nation, despite the presumption of legality cloaking administrative acts, the Commission observes that in the present case the alleged victim has not been guaranteed the right to appeal the judgment, because the appeal for reconsideration does not comply with the standards of law to appeal, and the request for nullification and reversal has not been resolved within a reasonable time so as to allow the IACHR to assess if it complies with the requirements of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. Additionally, as a consequence of the delay, in addition to rejection of the actions for protection, Mr. Petro Urrego has not had a simple, prompt, and effective recourse to protect him from the violations of due process asserted in his complaint. 141. By virtue of everything stated in this section, the Commission concludes that the State of Colombia is responsible for violation of the rights contained in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(h), and 25(1) of the American Convention in conjunction of Articles 1(1) and (2) of the same, to the detriment of Gustavo Francisco Urrego. C. Right to equal protection100 and right to judicial protection101 142. The Commission and the Court have stated that the principle of equality and nondiscrimination constitutes a central and fundamental pillar of the Inter-American human rights system. Likewise, they have stated that this “entails obligations erga omnes of protection that bind all States and 102 generate effects with regard to third parties, including individuals.” The Court has stated that at the current stage of the evolution of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the realm of jus cogens. The whole juridical structure of national and international public order rests 103 on it and it permeates the whole legal system. 143. In their jurisprudence, both the IACHR and the Court have made reference “abuse of power” as the mechanism through which legitimate resources of the administration of justice are used with nondeclared and non-evident objectives that, at first sight, establish an “implicit” sanction with an aim different to 104 that provided by law. Under certain circumstances, abuse of power may constitute a violation of the 105 principle of equality in cases of covert discrimination. When alleging covert discrimination, some experts 99 See, for example, State Council, Contentious Administrative Chamber, Decision on the annulment request in the case of Piedad Esneda Córdoba Ruiz, August 9, 2016, p.19; State Council, Contentious Administrative Chamber, Sub-section A, Decision on the annulment request in the case of Fabio Alonso Salazar Jaramillo, March 26, 2014. 100 Article 24 of the American Convention states: All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 101 Article 25 of the American Convention reads in the relevant part: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 102 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No.18, para. 173 (5). 103 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No.18, para. 101 and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, para. 216. 104 IACHR, Claim before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Perkings Rocha Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) (Case12.489) v. Venezuela, November 29, 2006, para. 124. 105 See, for example, IACHR, Report No. 75/15, Case 12.923. Merits. Rocío San Miguel Sosa et. al. Venezuela. October 28, 2015, paras. 148 and following; I/A Court H.R., Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293. 27