7 said reasoning make it possible to exercise the right to defense.” 9 Therefore, the Constitutional Court has considered that the right to a reason for the act of dismissal “has in these instances, autonomous constitutional existence.” 10 38. With respect to whether tutela is the appropriate procedure vis-à-vis acts of dismissal of temporary career officials, the Constitutional Court has held that With regard to situations of an absence of legal reasoning for the act of dismissal, it has been considered appropriate to grant the protection sought and direct the respondent entity to provide a reason for the administrative act of dismissal, following the criteria set by constitutional jurisprudence to dispute such a determination, with the caveat that if the respondent entity does not abide by the order, it should reinstate him in the same position or an equivalent one. 11 39. Taking into account several precedents of the Constitutional Court in which it has ordered that the act be justified in order to protect the due process rights of the requesting party, 12 the IACHR considers, for purposes of admissibility, that an action for tutela (special appeal for constitutional relief) constituted one procedure that could offer an adequate remedy to obtain the legal reasoning for the act of dismissal and allow for the petitioner’s defense in an administrative proceeding. 13 40. In this case, the Commission notes that the alleged victim contended that there was a violation of due process in a tutela suit brought before the Sectional Council of the Courts of Bolivar. Said tutela was settled on July 26, 2005 and an order was issued for her reinstatement in a similar position to the one she had held. After this ruling was appealed, on September 7, 2005, the Superior Council of the Judiciary issued its ruling and overturned the trial court decision, in considering that the rights alleged by the petitioner as violated, had been analyzed in a tutela proceeding previously brought before the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cartagena. 41. Based on the information in the case file, the petitioner alleged a violation of due process, first in the tutela case brought before the Sectional Council of the Judiciary of Bolivar; 14 therefore, the Commission notes that the State had the opportunity to know the claims relating to the alleged violation of this right and, as appropriate, offer an effective remedy. The Commission notes that the ruling of the Superior Council of the Judiciary was not chosen for review by the Constitutional Court and, therefore, this remedy was properly exhausted. 2. 9 Timeliness Judgment SU-917 of 2010. 10 Judgment T-1240 of 2004. 11 Judgment T-087 of 2009. 12 In Judgment SU-917 of 2010, the Constitutional Court cites, inter alia, judgments T-1206 of 2004, T-031 of 2005, T-161 of 2005, T-222 of 2005, T-267 of 2005, T-392 of 2005, T-648 of 2005, T-660 of 2005, T-804 of 2005, T-1159 of 2005, T-1162 of 2005, T-1310 of 2005, T-1316 of 2005, T-1323 of 2005, T-081 of 2006, T-156 of 2006, T-653 of 2006, where it entertained requests for tutela in which the moving parties claimed that they were serving in their career position on a temporary basis in the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation and that they had been removed from the entity by means of an administrative act without cause, on the grounds that it was at the discretion of the appointing official. In all of these instances, the Court has protected the right to due process and equality of the requesting party, when it has verified the existence of a temporary appointment and of a dismissal without any cause. 13 In the words of the Constitutional court of Colombia: “In deed, the protection order, in the event that it is appropriate, would be aimed at getting the Administration to state a cause for the act of dismissal, if there is any reason for it, in which case the door would be open for the affected party, should he or she deem it necessary, to file an administrative suit.” See Judgment T-1240 of 2004. 14 As is noted in the judgment of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cartagena (Labor Chamber), the petitioner filed the first tutela, alleging violation of the following rights “work, living minimum wage in connection with the right to health and the life of her children, dependents and the right to special protection of a woman head of household.” In contrast, in the second tutela brought before the Sectional Council of the Judiciary, the alleged rights were “equality, due process, living minimum wage and family.” See respectively, Superior Tribunal of the Judicial District of Cartagena, Labor Chamber of Decisions. Record No. 0014, Case File No. 00024, February 25, 2005, pg. 4 and Sectional Council of the Judiciary of Bolivar, Case No- T037-2005, July 26, 2005, pg. 2.