The general question being debated here:
In Colombia there is a very grave contradiction between the [Inter] American convention … and the [Colombina] Constitution,” Montoya told Colombia Reports.
Whereas the Inter-American convention — which Colombia signed in Costa Rica in 1969 and incorporated into its national legislation in Law 16, 1972 — states that an official elected by public vote can only be dismissed following criminal proceedings before a judge – our legal system allows this dismissal to be carried out by an administrative officer such as Ordoñez.
The question then is which is more powerful – Colombia’s Constitution or the international law that it has committed itself to?
The dilemma is that while Article 4 of the Constitution sets itself out as the “supreme law,” further down, Article 93 reads that “International treaties … that recognize human rights … have priority domestically.”
This unfortunate clash is an issue that the IACHR will have to analyse and pass judgement on, hopefully in the near future. Whatever conclusion they come to, the ball will then fall into Colombia’s field.
http://colombiareports.co/petro-vs-colombia-can-international-bodies-save-bogotas-mayor/
-------------------------
Arguments against the decision by President Santos to confirm the dismissal of Mayor Gustavo Petro:
As described by former Constitutional Court magistrate Alfredo Beltran, “The Constitutional Court says that when precautionary measures by the IACHR, or provisional measures by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are dictated in order to protect a fundamental right, these decrees are obligatory for all [member] states.”
“They’re not mere suggestions or requests that might or might not be fulfilled. They have a binding force,” Beltran concluded.
http://colombiareports.co/santos-ignores-international-court-approves-dismissal-bogota-mayor/
-----------------------
And in favor of the decision made by Santos today (translated and summarized from Spanish):
Precautionary measures from the IACHR have only been considered binding by Colombia when they concern the protection of life and integrity, not for the protection of political rights. Past Constitutional Court decisions have only referred to the decisions to protect life, whenever they considered such rulings to be obligatory.
In fact, the Constitutional Court has also confirmed the dismissal of Senator Piedad Córdoba as valid, who had argued that popularly elected officials couldn't be dismissed nor stripped of political rights because it would be against the Inter-American convention, just like what Petro is arguing now. That argument was rejected last year.
If the IACHR measures were accepted, then that would potentially open the floodgates for thousands of similar demands and lawsuits in favor of anyone, including people who aren't left-wing nor in the opposition, who has been previously dismissed in the same manner.
http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/bogota/destitucion-de-petro-cuatro-razones-juridicas-detras-de-la-decision-_13688095-4
= new reply since forum marked as read