Constitutional Court declared inadmissible official custody of the Attorney General argued that sexual orientation discrimination

Review the First Chamber of the Constitutional Court dismissed the writ of protection brought against the Attorney General's Office, Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado, Daniel Sastoque Coronado officer who claimed discrimination by moving it from office.

In his application for protection and through different media, the official argued that such transfer was made as a result of his homosexual orientation, political views and philosophical (an activist for the rights of LGBTI people) and its membership of the Union Office of Workers. Mr. Sastoque Coronado invoked as a violation of their rights to due process, to work in decent conditions and fair, the right to equality and nondiscrimination, as well as their rights to health, to freedom of expression and conscience, the honor and good name, not to be subjected to torture, cruel and degrading treatment.

Although the Labour Division of the Superior Tribunal of Bogota and the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court had denied the application for protection in the Judgement T-863, 2011 the Constitutional Court overturned the decisions of the request to declare that the action was simply unfounded. In reaching this decision, in addition to considering the application, the previous decisions and the explanations given by the Chief Public Prosecutor, the First Board of Review took into account the nine books submitted by the applicant after the court of second instance and above by third parties such as NGOs, private institutions and citizens who participated in the process to support the plaintiff.

Among other things, the ruling of the Constitutional Court states:

"It is the Court that the act [of transfer] was" ostensibly arbitrary "and, therefore, that the protection is coming under the first hypothesis. (...) [C] onviene clear that the petitioner has not been the only officer moved from the Prosecutor for the Prevention Field of Human Rights and Ethnic Affairs in the year two thousand ten (2010) and so far this year two thousand eleven (2011) ".

"[T] he transfer of Mr. [...] to the regional headquarters of Cundinamarca was available to meet the growing demand for services experienced this dependence as a result of the role assigned him to serve the population displaced by violence reached the capital and the Department of Cundinamarca, in conjunction with the District Attorneys. "

The High Court indicated that it took into account the effect of the opinions that have been made public today the nation's attorney general, as a citizen, on certain sexual options with regard to the degree of protection they should receive from the State and on what should be the limits of human freedom in sexual matters and erotic, "But those single events can not be inferred that the transfer of a person [...] has been motivated by sexual orientation, political opinions or philosophical or his union membership, because those statements are general and not specific. And from assertions that level of generality, is at least hasty to conclude that there has been a particular and specific discrimination. "

Notes the statement that there is no process elements to the Constitutional Court should conclude, rightly, that the act of transfer was issued suddenly or affected in a clear, direct and serious fundamental rights of the officer. It argues that although the plaintiff claims that the act was violated their right to health, to freedom of expression and conscience, free choice of profession or trade, to decent and fair, the good name and honor, not be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in fact very few have reasons to conclude that these rights were interfered seriously and direct the allocation of functions in the regional headquarters of the Agency.

Along with the processes for alleged violation of religious freedom and a secular state, promoted by the same official and other citizens as well as the writ of protection established by women of the organization Women's Link World Wide against the Attorney General's Office procurators and some are already October 10 sentences in which protection has been concluded and reiterated that neither the prosecutor Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado or any officials of the Attorney discriminates or excludes people because of their beliefs or orientations, nor infringe the right to information of citizens in order to promote particular ideological agenda.