2 status until November 4, 2004, when her appointment was rendered null and void. She asserts that while she served as Sectional Prosecuting Attorney No. 16, she took part in an investigation for the crime of abuse of authority, which was allegedly committed by the Secretary of the local environmental authority the Autonomous Regional Corporation of Canal del Dique (Corporación Autónoma Regional del Canal del Dique or CARDIQUE for its Spanish acronym), who had issued an order granting a trash collection permit to a company in the municipality of Pasacaballo without fulfilling the requirement of prior consultation with the afro-descendant communities living in the area. She indicates that, in the context of her investigations, she received a motion to restore the right [to prior consultation]. The motion was filed by the representative of the communities, who acted as a civil party in the proceeding, and she vacated the aforementioned order. 6. She contends that in July 2004, she was entitled to vacation time and during her absence, the person substituting for her, revoked her decision reinstating the right of the communities settled in the area to be consulted, and closed the investigation. She states that when she went back to work, the representative of the Judicial Oversight Ministry (Ministerio Público, as it is called in Colombia) assisted in filing the motion for revocation of the decisions issued by the replacement Prosecuting Attorney during her absence. She claims that she was called by the Director of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, who told her that she should not intervene in administrative proceedings; however, the petitioner indicates that her proceeding was related to a criminal matter. 7. She affirms that as a consequence of her investigation, the alleged victim overturned the proceeding conducted by the prosecutor who replaced her during her vacation. She contends that on October 20, 2004, she communicated her decision to the director of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney and that very same day she was denied permission to attend a symposium in Bogota. 8. She claims that on October 29, 2004, two decisions were issued against her. One decision was to transfer her to Providencia Island and was made by the Director of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. The other decision rendered null and void her appointment as Sectional Prosecutor No. 16 of Cartagena and was signed by the Attorney General of the Nation. She notes that she was notified of the first decision on November 3, 2004, and it was dated effective as of the day before the notification. She affirms that she was notified of the second decision on November 4, 2004, and it was effective as of that same day. She asserts that the Attorney General was unaware that she had accepted the office of Sectional Prosecutor on Providencia Island, when he removed her from her office as Sectional Prosecutor No. 16 of Cartagena. 9. She argues that after her removal from office, the case relating to the alleged crime of abuse of authority was transferred to the Office of the Attorney General of Bogota and that the company ultimately obtained the environmental permit. She affirms that the representative of the communities affected by the sanitary landfill, who acted as a civil party to the case, was murdered in unclear circumstances. 10. She indicates that she has filed several different appeals to be reinstated in her position. She further indicates that she brought a tutela suit, a special action for constitutional protection, before the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cartagena in order to assert her right of association, to work and to a living minimum wage, in connection with the right to health, life of her children and the protection required in her capacity as a woman head of household. She claims that on February 25, 2005, the tutela was denied to her, inasmuch as the judge held that tutela was a subsidiary mechanism and that a regular proceeding was available for her to pursue her claims. The petitioner challenged this ruling; the judgment was upheld by the Labor Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and the ruling was not chosen to be reviewed by the Constitutional Court. 11. She alleges that she also brought an “action to vacate an administrative act and restore the right” before the Administrative Court of Cartagena which, on October 14, 2005, found the case groundless, since it was brought on July 12, 2005, beyond the legal period of four months following the act that rendered the right null and void. She contends that this was because the attorney who was representing her did not file the case on time, and she was not able to deal with these legal procedures, as she was engaged in working to try to support her own family.