CCPR/C/123/D/2537/2015 author could be held criminally liable for irregularities identified in the disbursement of subsidies under the AIS programme, the General Comptroller’s Office shelved the preliminary investigation and, in proceedings brought against the legal adviser to the Ministry, in which the author was not a party, Cundinamarca Administrative Court concluded that the scientific and technological cooperation agreements were not unlawful. 3.11 In relation to article 15 of the Covenant, the author claims that he was sentenced for acts or omissions that were not offences and that no criminal liability could be established under article 32 (10) (1) of the Criminal Code. The scientific and technological cooperation agreements were concluded on the basis of established practice in the Ministry of Agriculture and among the relevant legal and technical experts. Accordingly, any error on the author’s part would be of the kind that precluded any criminal liability. Even if this were not the case, his actions would constitute negligence and, in the absence of any criminal intent, he would not be subject to criminal penalties. Therefore, he was convicted of acts or omissions that were not criminal offences. 3.12 The author also maintains that he is a victim of a violation by the State party of his rights under articles 19 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, in that the criminal proceedings brought against him were part of a campaign of persecution led by the current Government of Colombia and motivated by his political opinions and his opposition to the peace process between the Government and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as FARC). He claims that the authorities were persecuting individuals who might potentially be candidates for the presidential elections held on 15 June 2014. He was singled out for these same reasons, and was prevented from exercising his civil and political rights, including the right to appeal against the conviction and sentence pronounced against him by the Supreme Court. 3.13 Lastly, the author claims that all these facts constitute a violation of his right to human dignity under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a note verbale dated 23 March 2015, the State party set forth its observations on the admissibility of the communication and requested the Committee to declare it inadmissible. 4.2 The State party maintains that the communication sets forth a distorted, biased and inaccurate account of the facts, as well as value judgments and subjective interpretations of legal fundamentals. With regard to the facts of the case, the State party indicates that, in response to a complaint filed in 2009, and in accordance with article 251 of the Constitution, on 21 July 2011, the Attorney General’s Office instituted charges against the author, in his capacity as former Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, before Bogotá High Court. On 12 October, the Attorney General’s Office formally indicted the author before the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court, which was hearing the author’s case. 4.3 The Attorney General’s Office requested that the author be placed in pretrial detention since the evidence suggested that he was likely to obstruct justice. On 21 July 2011, after a public hearing at which the author and the Counsel General were present, Bogotá High Court, as the court responsible for ensuring due process, ordered that the author be placed in pretrial detention. On 14 June 2013, the judicial authorities reversed this order on the grounds that the prosecution had prepared its evidence and the risk of obstruction of justice therefore no longer existed. The author continued to appear in court but, although he had been summoned, he failed to attend the hearing at which the Supreme Court’s judgment was read out. He also failed to appear at subsequent hearings before the Supreme Court and, as of the date on which the State party’s observations were submitted to the Committee, he had not come forward to serve his sentence. 4.4 The State party provides a detailed description of the relevant sections of the Constitution, legal provisions and case law relating to the jurisdiction applicable to government ministers and criminal investigations and trials carried out by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. The case law of national courts indicates that trials of public officials before the Supreme Court do not disregard due process and that the right to GE.18-22078 5