Advanced Search

Ley 900 2004

Original Language Title: LEY 900 de 2004

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$40 per month.

LAW 900 DE 2004

(July 21)

Official Journal No. 45.618 of 23 July 2004

Official Journal No. 46.199 of 3 March 2006

PUBLIC POWER-LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

By means of which the "Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" is approved, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001).

Vigency Notes Summary

THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

Having regard to the text of the Basic Convention for Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) November of two thousand one (2001), which to the letter says:

(To be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of the International Instrument mentioned).

BILL OF LAW 108 OF 2002 SENATED

by means of which the "Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" is approved, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) November of two mil uno (2001).

THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

Having regard to the text of the Basic Convention for Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) November of two thousand one (2001), which to the letter says:

(To be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of the International Instrument mentioned).

" BASIC CONVENTION OF TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF GUATEMALA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA

The Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, hereinafter the Parties;

ENCOURAGED by the desire to strengthen the traditional bonds of friendship between the two countries;

TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION that both Parties have been carrying out technical and scientific cooperation actions under the Technical Cooperation Agreement between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogota, Colombia, on 13 December. of July 1976,

CONSCIOUS of their common interest in promoting and promoting technical and scientific progress and the mutual advantages that would result from cooperation in fields of mutual interest;

CONVINCED of the importance of updating and strengthening mechanisms that contribute to the development of this process and the need to implement technical and scientific cooperation programs that have an effective impact on economic progress and of their respective countries;

AGREE THE FOLLOWING:

ARTICLE I.

1. The objective of this Convention is to promote technical and scientific cooperation between the two countries, through the formulation and implementation, by common agreement, of programmes and projects in these areas.

2. In the preparation of these programmes and projects, the Parties shall take into account the priorities set out in their respective development plans and support the participation, in their implementation, of bodies and institutions of the sectors public, private and social, as well as universities, scientific and technical research institutions and non-governmental organizations.

The Parties should also take into consideration the importance of implementing national development projects and encourage the implementation of joint technological development projects, which will link research centers with industrial entities of the two countries.

3. The Parties may, on the basis of this Convention, conclude complementary technical and scientific cooperation agreements in specific areas of common interest.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE II.

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the Parties shall jointly develop Biennial Programmes, in accordance with the priorities of both countries in the field of their respective economic and social development plans and strategies.

2. Each programme must specify objectives, financial and technical resources, work schedules, as well as the areas in which the projects will be implemented. They shall also specify the operational and financial obligations of each Party.

3. Each Programme will be evaluated at the mid-term of the Joint Commission in the framework of a bilateral meeting of technical work.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE III.

1. In the implementation of the programmes, the participation of multilateral and regional technical cooperation bodies, as well as of third-country institutions, shall be encouraged and included, where the Parties consider it necessary.

2. The Parties may, whenever they consider it necessary and by mutual agreement, request the financing and participation of international and other countries in the implementation of programs and projects to be agreed upon in accordance with the Present Convention.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE IV.

For the purposes of this Convention, technical and scientific cooperation between the Parties may assume the following modalities:

a) Exchange of specialists, researchers and university professors;

b) internships for professional training and training;

(c) Joint and coordinated implementation of programmes and/or research and/or technological development projects linking research centres and industry;

d) Exchange of information on scientific and technological research;

e) Development of joint cooperation activities in third countries;

f) Grant of scholarships for professional specialization studies and intermediate technical training studies;

g) Organization of seminars, workshops and conferences;

h) Consulting services station;

i) Sending equipment and material needed for the execution of specific projects, and

j) Any other mode agreed by the Parties.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE V.

In order to have an appropriate follow-up mechanism or the cooperation actions provided for in this Convention and to achieve the best conditions for its implementation, the Parties shall establish a Guatemalan-Colombian Joint Commission, made up of representatives of both governments, as well as those institutions whose activities have a direct impact on the technical and scientific cooperation of both countries.

This Joint Committee will be chaired by the Secretariat of Planning and Programming of the Presidency, by Guatemala, and by the Colombian Agency for International Cooperation, in conjunction with the Directorate-General for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by Colombia, and will have the following functions:

a) Evaluate and delimit priority areas in which specific technical and scientific cooperation projects would be feasible;

b) Study and recommend programs and projects to run;

c) Review, analyze and approve the Biennial Programs of technical and scientific cooperation;

d) Monitor the proper observance and compliance with this Convention and to make recommendations to the Parties that it considers relevant.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE VI.

1. The Joint Committee will meet in Guatemala and Colombia in an alternate way every two years, on the dates previously agreed through the official route.

2. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, each Party may, at any time, submit specific technical and scientific cooperation projects to the other Party for due consideration and, where appropriate, for approval. The Parties may also convene, by common agreement and whenever they deem necessary, extraordinary meetings of the Joint Committee.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE VII.

Both Parties shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the experiences acquired by their nationals, as a result of the cooperation referred to in Article IV, are replicated within their respective institutions to contribute to the economic and social development of their countries.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE VIII.

In the shipment of personnel referred to in Article IV, the international transportation costs of one of the Parties to the territory of the Other Party shall be borne by the party that sends it. The cost of lodging, feeding and local transport shall be covered by the receiving Party, unless expressly specified otherwise or subject to the supplementary agreements referred to in Article I, numeral 3, of this Conve. nio.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE IX.

The national bodies and institutions responsible for the implementation of the supplementary agreements referred to in Article 1 (3) of this Convention shall inform the Joint Committee of the results of their work and submit proposals for further development of cooperation.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE X.

Each Party will provide the necessary facilities for the entry, stay and departure of the personnel, who will be officially involved in the cooperation projects. This staff shall be subject to the national provisions in force in the receiving country and shall not be able to engage in any activity other than his or her duties, or receive any remuneration, outside those established, without the prior authorization of the authorities. competent.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE XI.

The Parties shall grant all administrative and fiscal facilities necessary for the entry and exit of equipment and materials to be used in the implementation of the projects, in accordance with their existing national legislation.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE XII.

In relation to the exchange of information and its dissemination, the laws and other provisions in force in both States, as well as the respective international commitments and the rights and obligations to be agreed upon in relation to the third parties. Where the information is provided by a Party, the Party may, when it considers it appropriate, indicate restrictions for its dissemination.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE XIII.

Contracting Parties commit to:

Grant experts, instructors and technicians who receive their countries, under the present Convention, the special prerogatives and privileges granted to international experts of Technical Assistance in accordance with the current regulations for the experts of the United Nations.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE XIV.

1. This Convention shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the second of the Notes by which the Parties communicate to have complied with the requirements of their national legislation for that purpose and shall be effective. Five-year initial, renewable for periods of equal duration, after evaluation.

2. This Convention may be amended by mutual consent and the agreed amendments shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties, by means of an Exchange of Diplomatic Notes, communicate the fulfilment of the requirements laid down by the Convention. national legislation.

3, Any Party may, at any time, terminate this Convention, by written notification, addressed to the Other through diplomatic means, six months in advance.

4. The termination of this Convention shall not affect the completion of programmes and projects which have been formalised during their lifetime.

5. Any dispute which may arise between the parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall be settled by direct negotiations between them. In the event that these negotiations are not successful, the dispute will be subject to the remaining means of peaceful resolution recognized by international law.

6. Upon entry into force of this Convention, the Convention on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogotá, Colombia, on 13 July 1976, shall be without effect without prejudice to the actions of the scheduled and running cooperation of the complementary agreements that are running.

Made in the city of Lima, on the 23rd of November of two thousand one, in two original copies in Spanish, being both texts equally valid.

By the Government of the Republic of Guatemala,

Unreadable signature.

By the Government of the Republic of Colombia,

Unreadable Signature ".

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

REPUBLIC OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., March 5, 2002

Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for the constitutional effects.

(Fdo.) ANDRES PASTRANA ARANGO

The Foreign Minister,

(FDO.) GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ DE SOTO.

DECRETA:

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 1o. Approve the Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-third day (23) November of two thousand one (2001).

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala From Colombia, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001), which by article 1 of this law is approved, it will force the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 3o. This law governs from the date of its publication.

GIVEN IN BOGOTA, D. C., A. ..

Presented to the honorable Congress of the Republic by the undersigned Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Foreign Minister,

MARIA CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

REASON EXPOSURE

Honorable Senators and Representatives:

On behalf of the National Government and in compliance with articles 150 numeral 16 and 189 numeral 2 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, I present to the Honorable Congress of the Republic of the Draft Law through which the Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation is approved between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-third day (23) November of two thousand one (2001).

At the Working Meeting of the 2000-2002 Colombia-Guatemala Cooperation Program, held in Bogota on May 15, 2000, Guatemala considered it necessary to sign a new Basic Cooperation Agreement between the two countries to modify the Article II (3) of the Convention signed in 1976, and to introduce the creation of the Joint Committee and the mechanism of follow-up meetings of previously established projects. Also, new modalities of cooperation were incorporated through the sending of experts and a dispute settlement clause, which was not previously contemplated.

fact, this Convention will be a unique framework for promoting the cooperation that has been developed with Guatemala in the fields of environment, education and culture, justice, health, mines and energy, integration and Community development and tourism.

The Convention is part of a group of cooperation agreements that Colombia has signed, with the aim of establishing new and appropriate cooperation bases, especially with the countries of Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean, in development of constitutional policies, and within the framework of regional integration.

The clauses of this Convention establish reciprocal commitments and conditions for cooperation on the basis of balanced benefits and consideration, through which the Parties seek a fruitful exchange of techniques and science. for the mutual benefit of Colombia and Guatemala.

This Convention maintains the spirit of technical cooperation among developing countries (CTPD), mapped out by the United Nations in the Buenos Aires Plan of Action of 1978, as an important instrument of solidarity and growth among countries. siblings.

Both in the Preamble and in the article, common expressions of good will of the Parties are recorded, in order to promote and stimulate the actions of cooperation, which since 13 July 1976 were being carried out between the two countries.

In the second article, it was agreed to draw up the Biennial Programs according to the priorities of both countries, and each program will have to specify objectives, financial and technical resources, work schedules, as well as in which the projects will be implemented. Each Program will be evaluated in the middle of the Joint Commission period.

In the third article it was agreed that when the Parties consider it necessary there will be participation of multilateral and regional technical cooperation agencies, as well as institutions of third countries and, if they consider it necessary, they can request the financing and participation of international and other countries.

In the fourth article it was agreed to develop the different modalities of cooperation such as: exchange of scientific staff, experts and university professors, technical training for the improvement of skills and specializations through scholarships, courses, seminars, and exchange of information and supplies of equipment and materials necessary for the execution of programs and projects.

The fifth article establishes the Guatemalan-Colombian Joint Commission, which will be composed of representatives of both governments, as well as representatives of institutions whose activities have an impact directly on the technical and scientific cooperation.

the Joint Committee will have to evaluate and delimit priority areas for the implementation of specific technical and scientific cooperation projects and study projects to be implemented. In addition, it will review, analyse and approve the Bienal Programme for technical and scientific cooperation and monitor the proper observance of the Convention.

In the sixth article, it was agreed that the Joint Commission will meet in Guatemala and Colombia in an alternate way every two years, on officially agreed dates, leaving the possibility of carrying out extraordinary meetings of the Joint Commission, to submit specific projects to the Parties for consideration.

With a view to the fact that the experiences acquired by our nationals, as a result of the cooperation, are replicated within the various institutions that contribute to the economic and social development of the countries, it was agreed, in the article seventh, that each of the States will take measures to fulfill this purpose.

In Article 8, both Parties agree that the costs of international transportation from one of the Parties to the territory of the Other Party shall be borne by the party that sends it. The cost of hosting, feeding and local transport shall be covered by the receiving Party, unless otherwise specified or subject to supplementary agreements.

In Article 9, the Parties agree that the national bodies and national institutions responsible for implementing the supplementary agreements referred to in Article 1 (3) of the Convention shall inform the Joint Committee on the results of their work and submit proposals for further development of cooperation.

In Article 10, it is agreed that each of the Parties will grant the necessary facilities for the entry, permanence and departure of the personnel, who will be officially involved in the cooperation projects. This staff shall be subject to the national provisions in force in the receiving country and shall not be able to engage in any activity other than his or her duties, or receive any remuneration, outside the prescribed period, without prior authorization from the authorities. competent.

In Article 11, the Parties undertake to grant all the administrative and fiscal facilities necessary for the entry and exit of equipment and materials to be used in the implementation of the projects, in accordance with their National legislation in force.

In Article 12, the two countries agree that the exchange of information and its dissemination will be done in accordance with the current rules.

In Article 13, the Parties undertake to grant to the experts, instructors and technicians who receive their countries the special prerogatives and privileges granted to international technical assistance experts, in accordance with the Regulations in force for the experts of the United Nations.

Article fourteenth states that the Convention shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the second of the Notes by which the Parties communicate that they have complied with the requirements of their national legislation, and that it will have an initial term of five years, renewable for periods of equal duration.

The Convention may be amended by mutual consent and, in the event, either Party may terminate it by written notification through the diplomatic route six months in advance, without affecting the conclusion of the Agreement. of the programmes and projects formalised during their lifetime.

Any dispute arising between the Parties shall be resolved by direct negotiations and in the event that these are not successful, the dispute shall be subject to the means of peaceful resolution recognized by International Law.

It is necessary to stress that this Convention obeys the desire of the two countries to promote and promote the economic and social development of their peoples for the benefit of both parties, contemplating the mechanisms necessary to set the cooperation tone existing with the world reality.

In view of the above, the National Government, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, submits to the honorable Congress of the Republic the Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001).

Of the honorable Congressmen,

MARIA CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON,

Minister of Foreign Affairs.

1998 Law 424

(January 13)

By which the international conventions signed by Colombia are ordered to follow.

COLOMBIA CONGRESS

DECRETA:

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 1o. The National Government through the Foreign Ministry will submit annually to the Senate and Chamber of Foreign Relations Committees, and within the first thirty days of the the legislative period starting every 20 July, a detailed report on how the existing International Conventions signed by C olombia with other States are being complied with and developed.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 2o. Each dependency of the National Government charged with implementing the International Treaties of its competence and requiring reciprocity in them, will transfer the relevant information to the Ministry Foreign and East Relations, to the Commissions Seconds.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 3o. The full text of this law shall be incorporated as an annex to each of the International Conventions that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents to the Congress.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 4. This law governs from its enactment.

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

AMYLKAR ACOSTA MEDINA.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

PEDRO PUMAREJO VEGA.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

CARLOS SQUIRLA BALLESTEROS.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

DIEGO VIVAS TAFUR.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

PUBLISH AND EXECUTE.

Dada en Santa Fe de Bogota, D. C., on January 13, 1998.

ERNESTO SAMPER PIZANO

The Foreign Minister,

MARIA EMMA MEJIA VELEZ.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

REPUBLIC OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., March 5, 2002

Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for the constitutional effects.

(Fdo.) ANDRES PASTRANA ARANGO

The Foreign Minister,

(FDO.) GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ DE SOTO.

DECRETA:

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 1o. Approve the Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-third day (23) November of two thousand one (2001).

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Republic of Colombia, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001), which by article 1 of this law is approved, will force the country from the date on which the international bond is perfected same.

Ir al inicio

ARTICLE 3o. This law governs from the date of its publication.

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

GERMAN VARGAS LLERAS.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

EMILIO RAMON OTERO DAJUD.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

ALONSO ACOSTA OSIO.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

ANGELINO LIZANO RIVERA.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

COMMUNICATE AND COMPLY.

Execute, upon revision of the Constitutional Court, in accordance with article 241-10 of the Political Constitution.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., July 21, 2004.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Foreign Minister,

CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

LAW ... DE 2006

(March 3)

Official Journal No. 46.199 of 3 March 2006

REPUBLIC OF THE REPUBLIC

By means of which the "Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" is approved, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001).

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Full Room

AUTO A-088 of 2005

REF: L.A.T. Expedient -273

Constitutional Review of Law 900 of July 21, 2004, by means of which the " Basic Technical and Scientific Cooperation Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001).

Rapporteur: ALVARO TAFUR GALVIS

Bogota, D. C., three (3) May two thousand five (2005).

The Full Court of the Constitutional Court, in compliance with its constitutional powers, has offered the following

AUTO

I. BACKGROUND

The "Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) November of two thousand one (2001), was signed by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Guillermo Fernández de Soto, who acted in the name and representation of the Republic of Colombia1.

For his part, the then President of the Republic, Dr. Andres Pastrana Arango, gave the corresponding executive approval to the Convention, on March 5, 2002, and ordered it to be submitted to the consideration of the Congress of the Republic2 who dealt with the relevant approving law.

The National Government, through the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, allego to this Corporation, on July 26, 2004, authentic photocopy of Law 900 of July 21, 2004, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three day (23) of November of two thousand one (2001) ".

By order of August 26, 2004, in order to exercise the control of constitutionality that the numeral 10 of article 241 of the Political Constitution orders, the examination of the The Convention under study and the Law 900 of 2004 that approves it. In the same order, the Secretaries-General of the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives, as well as the Secretaries of the Senate and House Committees, were asked to send to the process of the reference copy of the the entire legislative file relating to the processing of the project corresponding to the Law 900 of 2004. In this order, it was ordered that, once the probative period has expired and the requested evidence received, the process will be established and the Attorney General of the Nation will be transferred to surrender the concept of rigor. Likewise, it was ordered in the order to communicate the initiation of the process to the President of the Republic, to the President of the Congress and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for the relevant legal effects.

Reviewed the legislative procedure followed in the passage of Law 900 of July 21, 2004, " by means of which the Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ', made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001) ", the Plena Room of this Corporation found that they were not fulfilled in their all the requirements set out in the Political Charter, as is the case for analysis.

II. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSIDERATIONS

1. Competition.

In harmony with the provisions of Article 241 numeral 10 of the Political Constitution, it is up to the Court to examine the constitutionality of international treaties and laws. approval of the same. The Court has consistently affirmed that the aforementioned control of constitutionality, comprises the totality of the content of those legal acts, both in its formal and substantive aspects3. In this order, the Court is ruled exclusively in relation to the examination of the constitutionality of Law 900 of July 21, 2004, " by means of which the ' Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ', made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001) ", for its formal aspects, regarding of which he has identified, as it happens to be explained, a vice that must be remedied by the Congress of the Republic.

2. Constitutionality of the 2004 Law 900 for its formal aspects

2.1 Verification of the procedure followed for the issuance of the Law 900 of 2004

Based on the certifications referred to the Court by the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives, as well as in the legislative record and in the minutes published in the Congressional Gacts The Republic, it was possible to determine that the procedure used in that Corporation for the issue of Law 900 of 2004, was the following:

2.1.2.1 The bill along with the explanatory memorandum was presented to the Senate of the Republic by the National Government through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Maria Carolina Barco Isakson on October 22, 2002, and was raded under the number 108 of 2002 and published in the Congress Gazette number 446 of October 28, 2002 (pp. 17 to 20). (Folios 314 to 318 of the Expedient).

2.1.2.2 This project with its corresponding explanatory statement was distributed to the Second Constitutional Committee of the Senate where the first debate took place. The paper published in the Congress Gazette number 195 of May 12, 2003 (pp. 13 to 14) (Folios 319 to 321 of the Expedient) was debated and approved with a deliberative and decision-making quorum of 11 votes in favour and none against the thirteen (13) members of the Commission, in session of 18 June 2003 as it is in the Minutes number 29 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette number 474 of September 15, 2003 (p. 3) (Folios 399 to 400 of the Expedient) and according to certification of August 31, 2004, sent by the Secretary General of the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the Senate of the Republic (Folio 44 of the Expedient).

2.1.2.3 The Senate plenary brought forward the second debate based on the paper published in the Congress Gazette number 309 of July 24, 2003 (p. 7). (Folios 87 to 94). The project was approved by 96 of the 102 Senators that make up the plenary, as stated in the Act No. 06 of September 9, 2003 published in the Congress Gazette number 532 of October 10, 2003 (pp. 4 to 6). (Folios 332 to 337 del Expediente) and as certified by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic of 13 September 2004. (Dossier 313 of the Expedient).

It should be noted that it is stated in Act 05 of the ordinary session of September 2, 2003, published in the Congress Gazette number 485 of September 22, 2003 (p. 4). (portfolio 137 of the test book), within the agenda item IV on reading of papers and consideration of projects in the second debate where it was pointed out that " in compliance with the Legislative Act number 01 of 2003, The following are the projects that will be discussed and approved in the present session " was included the bill of Law 108 of 2002 Senate, by means of which the" Basic Convention of Technical Cooperation and Scientific cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia. " This project was not finally discussed in the session.

Now as is apparent from the Act 04 corresponding to the sitting of 26 August 2003 published in the Gazette number 484 of 22 September 2003, no summons prior to the inclusion on the agenda of the session of September 2 was held in the ordinary session. of August 26, -session prior to the one in which the bill was included in the bill of the bill sub-examine-.

In turn as stated in the Act number 06 of September 9, 2003 published in the Congress Gazette number 532 of October 10, 2003 (p. 4). (Folio 335 of the Expedient) within the agenda item IV on reading of papers and consideration of projects in the second debate, where it was pointed out that " in compliance with the Legislative Act number 01 of 2003, The projects that will be discussed and approved in this session " were included in" Bill 108 of 2002 Senate, by means of which the " Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia. " Project that was effectively debated and approved in the aforementioned session as already noted.

These circumstances pose the configuration of a vice in the process whose scope and consequences will be analyzed later.

2.1.2.4 Once the bill was established in the House of Representatives under the number 112 of 2003, the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission brought forward the first debate on the basis of the paper published in the i_aj">Congress Gazette number 536 of 16 October 2003 (pp. 7 to 8) (Folios 139 to 146 of the Expedient). This project was discussed and approved with the assistance of 17 representatives, unanimously, in session on November 26, 2003, according to the certification of the Secretary General of the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the Chamber of Representatives issued on 3 September 2004. (Dossier 46 of the Expedient) and as stated in Act number 014 of the same date published in the Congress Gazette number 186 of May 10, 2004 (p. 2). (Folios 397 to 398 of the Expedient).

Now, as stated in Act number 013 of the ordinary session of November 25, 2003 published in the Congress Gazette number 185 of May 10, 2004, p. 2). (Folios 115 to 134 of the Expedient), within the bills whose vote was announced for the session of November 26, 2003 by the Secretariat of the Corporation, figured the bill 112 of 2003 House, 108 of 2002 Senate, Thus, the Court finds that in this case the mandate contained in the last paragraph of article 160 was fulfilled.

2.1.2.5 The plenary of the House of Representatives advanced the second debate of the bill, from the paper published in the Congress Gazette number 90 of March 25, 2004 (pp. 9 to 10). (Folios 147 to 158 of the Expedient) which was discussed and approved in plenary session on June 9, 2004 by a majority of the present 160 Representatives of the Corporation, as stated in the Minutes number 110 of the same date published in the Congress Gazette number 391 of July 26, 2004 (pp. 54 and 55). (Folios 159 to 278 of the Expedient) and according to certification issued by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives of August 30, 2004. (Dossier 137 of the Expedient).

Now, as stated in Minutes number 109 of the session of June 8, 2004, published in the Congress Gazette number 365, (p. 6), within the bills whose vote was announced for the session on June 9, 2004 by the Secretariat of the Corporation, was the bill 112 of 2003 House, 108 of 2002 Senate, by means of which it is approved the "Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia". Thus, the Court finds that in this case the mandate contained in the last paragraph of article 160 was fulfilled.

2.1.2.6 The President of the Republic sanctioned the approval law of the sub-examination, on July 21, 2004, under the number 900 and referred it to this Corporation, being received on July 26 of the year two thousand four (2004), i.e. within the term provided for in Article 241-10 of the Political Constitution for review.

2.1.3 Failure to comply with the requirement stated in the top article 160 -as modified by the article 8o of the Act Legislative 01 of 2003-, in the debate held in the plenary of the Senate of the Republic

As can be seen from the previous count, in relation to the procedure given to the bill sub examine in the second debate before the Plenary of the Senate of the Republic, the failure to comply with the requirement is evident. indicated in the last paragraph of article 160 above as modified by article 8o of Legislative Act 01, 2003.

In this respect, it should be recalled that as of 3 July 2003, the date of the entry into force of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the mandate contained in Article 8o of the said Act should be fulfilled. Legislative, which added the following text to the constitutional article 160 with the following text: " No bill will be put to a vote in a different session than the one that was previously announced. The notice that a project will be put to the vote will be given by the Presidency of each Chamber or Commission in session other than that in which the vote will be held. "

The purpose of this constitutional precept is as explained by this Corporation, " to allow the Congressmen to know in advance which bills or reports of presidential objections will be submitted to voting, assuming full knowledge of them and avoiding, therefore, that they are caught"4.5"-of-the-box votes.

The Court has established that this provision requires for its compliance that in a previous session -the one in which it is discussed and voted-the projects that will be discussed and voted on in a , and that the express call must be made for a predetermined and determined future date, or at least, determinable6.

Now, the Court finds that in the present case, as stated in Act 05 of the ordinary session of September 2, 2003, published in the Congress Gazette number 485 of September 22, 2003, p. 4, within the agenda item IV on the reading of papers and consideration of projects in the second debate, where it was pointed out that " in compliance with the Legislative Act number 01 of 2003, the following are related: projects to be discussed and approved in this session " included the bill of Law 108 of 2002 Senate, by means of which the" Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia. " (Subrays out of text). Session at which the project was finally not voted on.

In turn as stated in Act number 06 corresponding to the ordinary session of September 9, 2003 published in the Congress Gazette number 532 of October 10, 2003 (p. 4). (Folio 335 of the Expedient) within the agenda item IV on reading of papers and consideration of projects in the second debate, where it was pointed out that " in compliance with the Legislative Act number 01 of 2003, The projects that will be discussed and approved in the present session " were included in the bill of Law 108 of 2002 Senate, by means of which the" Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia. " Session in which the referred bill was effectively discussed and approved.

However, as is apparent from the Act 04 corresponding to the sitting of 26 August 2003 published in the Gazette number 484 of 22 September 2003, no summons prior to the inclusion on the agenda the sessions of September 2 and 9 was carried out in the ordinary session of August 26, without being able to be understood as fulfilling the requirement stated in article 160 as it was modified by the article of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 the inclusion on the agenda of the sessions of September 2, 2003-in which the sub-examination projectnot discussed or voted on-and on September 9-in which the referred project was effectively discussed and voted on.

La Nacion] That circumstance is the one that the Attorney General of the Nation puts forward in his concept to request the declaration of inexequibility of the law as soon as a procedural vice was configured-in his opinion. subsanable-7, as the command contained in the last item of the constitutional article 160 as modified by the article 8o of Legislative Act 01, 2003.

In the case of the Court, the configuration in the present case of a procedural vice is clear as to how clearly the precise mandate contained in the last paragraph of the article 160 as modified by article 8o of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 according to which " No bill will be submitted to voting in a different session than the one previously announced. The notice that a project will be put to the vote will be given by the Pres sidence of each Chamber or Commission in session other than that in which the vote will be held. "

The Court finds in effect that the vote of bill 108 of 2002 Senate, by means of which is approved the " Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of of the Republic of Colombia " was carried out without a prior session-to be known on August 26 or September 2-was announced for the date of September-9 September-the implementation of the said vote.

It should be noted that the inclusion of the project referred to on the agenda of the session of 2 September-within the terms of point IV in the terms which it referred to-does not constitute compliance with the above mandate, as it has been referred to. This implies a prior and certain knowledge by the Congressmen of the date of the vote of a given project, which in the present case did not present8.

Thus, it has to be concluded that in relation to the vote in the Senate plenary of Bill 108 of 2002 Senate, by means of which the " Basic Convention of Technical Cooperation, and Scientific among the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia " was configured the procedural vice to which reference has been made.

2.1.4 The subsanable character of the procedure vice identified by the Court

Now, in the face of the identified procedural vice it must be remembered that according to settled case law9 not all violation of a rule on the formation of laws, contained in the Constitution or in the Congress, ineluctably the invalidity of the law, and its declaration of unconstitutionality.

In this regard, it should be remembered that the constitutional rules on the formation of laws aimed at preserving the essential content of the institutional system designed by the Constituent Assembly, as well as ensuring that the debate in Congress is broad, transparent and rational10, do not have a value in themselves and must be interpreted teleologically in the service of the material values that those rules intend to perform (articles 1o, 2o and 228 of the Constitution)11.

Likewise, in accordance with the paragraph of article 241 of the Constitution when the Court finds subsable procedural defects in the formation of the act subject to its control order return it to the authority that proffered it so that, if possible, amend the observed defect and for the vice to be remedied, proceed to decide on the exequibilityd of the act.

In particular by referring specifically to the principle of instrumentality of forms the Court has explained the following:

"The principle of the instrumentality of procedural forms and the possibility of sanitation in the formation of laws

27. The principle of instrumentality of forms has important implications for how the relationship between an irregularity in the formation of a law, its eventual invalidity, and the possibilities of healing these defects should be analyzed. procedural.

Thus, first of all, it is clear that not all violations of a rule on the formation of laws, contained in the Constitution or in the respective Rules of Congress, are ineluctably the invalidity of the law and its declaration of unconstitutionality. Indeed, in certain cases, it may be an irregularity in the case of the Member State in which it does not infringe any principle or constitutional value, and in particular does not affect the process of forming the democratic will in the Member States. Chambers, nor does it not know the basic institutional content designed by the Charter. In such cases, this impropriety in the strict sense, does not constitute a real vice in the formation of the law, as has been pointed out by the doctrine and the jurisprudence national and foreign. Thus, in comparative law, the Spanish Constitutional Court, in Judgment S-57/89, found that an amendment introduced in the Senate had not been motivated, but rejected the challenge against that law, since it considered that this defect did not alter substantially the process of forming the will of the Camar12. And in the case of Colombia, this Court has pointed out that, despite the fact that in principle the reports of presentation must be signed by all the rapporteurs, in case of divergence of criteria between them, the lack of signature of those who turned away from the The majority position does not really constitute a procedural defect, since this situation ' does not have sufficient authority to vitiate the legitimacy of the publication of the report for a second debate. Indeed, the discrepancies between the speakers cannot go to the point of torpedoing the legislative process, through negative behaviors that distort the legislative function '13.

28. Second, in other events, it may occur that the vice exists, but is validated in the same process of formation of the law, in so far as the purpose that the rule of procedure was intended to protect, or the the irregularity was expressly remedied by an authority which had jurisdiction to carry out such a reorganisation. For example, in comparative law, the doctrine and the case-law have considered that an essential vice in the vote, can be understood as validated, if it is clear that the law has the necessary majority required, for the purpose of voting (determining whether or not there is a majority) would have been met14. And in Colombia, this Constitutional Court has pointed out, on numerous occasions, that a vice of representation during the subscription of a treaty is understood to be sanitized, if it works within the file corresponding presidential confirmation15. Similarly, this Corporation has understood that the violation of the exclusivity of initiative that the Government has in certain matters can be validated in the legislative process, for which it is enough for the ministers to put their rubric in the Although the initiative is the express, clear and unequivocal manifestation of the executive, that it considers necessary the adoption of such or that measure that will affect the structure of the national administration, it has been This requirement is supported by the so-called ministerial endorsement '16.

In such a context, if a procedural vice existed but was validated, it is obvious that, depending on the prevalence of the substantial right (C.P. art. 228), it does not make sense for the Court to declare the unconstitutionality of the disposition charged.

29. In the third term, there may be a vice in the formation of the law and this has not been validated, but the Court finds that the vice can be remedied during the constitutional review of the law. In such an event, the Charter expressly states that the constitutional judge must return the rule subject to control to the authority that profirio so that, if possible, it proceeds to remedy it (C.P. art. 241 par.). In such cases, as long as that procedure is taken, the law continues to apply. And indeed, and several opportunities, this Court has returned to Congress and the Government, laws under control so that a procedural vice will be remedied.

30. Finally, it can happen that there are vices in the process of forming the law, and that these have not been validated in the legislative process, but they can be remedied by the Constitutional Court itself, when it is ruling on the rule in question. For example, when an ordinary law has been given the legislative process of an organic law in such cases, the Court has considered that there is, indeed, a vice, as it was expressed in the judgment C-025/93, ' the democratic principle obliges to interpret restrictively the special procedures which appear qualified majorities and which, to some extent, petrify the legal order and prevent the development of a political process free of the predominance of the simple majority, which fully guarantees their freedom and opening. ' In these situations, the Court has the possibility of directly correcting the detected vice, noting that it is materially a law of an ordinary nature, and declaring its constitutionality under such understanding17.

31. The Court points out that in comparison, as in the case of Colombia, the seriousness of the vice has no direct impact on the possibilities of sanitation or validation of the vice. The intensity of the irregularity must be taken into account to examine whether or not this constitutes a procedural vice; but a found that vice exists, gravity is not the most important element for determine whether or not there is a possibility of validation or consolidation, as it is other factors that come into play in this assessment. For example, this Court has pointed out that if the Constitution sets certain deadlines for a law to be passed, as is the case with statutory laws or the law of plan18, the constitutional judge cannot return the law to Congress. for the possible correction of the observed defect, since the constitutional terms would already be defeated. The vices that would not have been validated in the process itself in the Congress become insubsainable, regardless of their gravity. Instead, the Court has accepted the validation by means of confirmation. President.-The President-in-Office of the Council of the European Union, Mr President-in-Office of the Council of the European Union. And likewise, this Corporation considered that a lack of quorum to decide was a subsable vice, despite its gravity, and ordered the return to the Congress of a law affected by that vice, so that it would be remedied, through the realization of of the relevant debate. According to the Court, the vice could be sanitized, ' for it was feasible to repeat the second debate in the Chamber, taking into account that for the draft of ordinary laws and, in particular, for those concerning the approval of international treaties, it is required that its approval occurs during a single legislature '19.

A serious vice can then become validated or remedied, while lower-entity vices may lack that possibility.

32. However, the Court states that, in each of the above cases, the possibility of reorganisation which the legal system grants must be interpreted and exercised in a reasonable manner; in other words, such a power cannot be granted I would also like to say that the Commission is not in a position to do so. In order to be able to speak of a healthy vice in the procedure for the formation of the law, it is necessary that, at the very least, the structural stages of such a procedure have been fulfilled, since the omission of these, for example, the pretermission of the debates before one of the legislative chambers-it makes it impossible to speak of a legislative procedure as such-and, consequently, it prevents us from considering the respective omission as a vice. In fact, in these events there would not be a vice of the procedure in the formation of the law, but an absence or absence of procedure, which cannot be remedied. For the same thing, it is impossible to catalog as 'Sanitation' is what, in reality, is equivalent to the repetition of a whole stage of the legislative process, since otherwise, the same substantive purposes would be used to circumvent the principle of the unrementality of the forms. preserve.

33. In accordance with the above, the principle of instrumentality of forms, expressly enshrined in Article 228 of the Charter, implies that the finding that an irregularity occurred in the It is not inevitable that the constitutional judge should always withdraw it from the law. It is necessary that, in advance, the judge examine (i) whether that defect is of sufficient entity to constitute a vice liable to affect the validity of the law; (ii) in case the irregularity represents a vice, the Court must study if If the vice was not validated, the Court should analyze whether it is possible to return the law to the Congress and the President to remedy the defect observed, and (iv) if none of the above is presented, the Court should determine whether it is possible for the Court to subsane, in its pronouncement, the detected vice, in accordance with the guidelines outlined above, and always respecting the principle of reasonableness "20. (Subrays out of text).

In application of these criteria, the Court regarding procedural defects in the processing of laws approving treaties, has in the past returned for the under-healing by the Congress laws of this type21. For example, it should be recalled that during the procedure of Law 194 of 1995, the approval law of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, the Government submitted to the consideration of the Congress a text incomplete of the treaty which was intended to be adopted by such law. Nevertheless, the Congress approved it and the law, with the corresponding treaty, was referred to the Constitutional Court. The Court considered that the non-approval of these articles of the Convention was due to an inwarning, and for estimating that it was a subsainable vice returned the law to the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency for the procedure to be corrected. On 21 March 1996, he indicated a seven (7) days for the Executive to present the draft corrected to Congress, and thirty (30) days for the debates to be held in the Chambers and to be again sanction the law22.

Thus, for example, in the process of Law 178 of 1994, " by means of which the 'Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property' was adopted, made in Paris on March 20, 1883, with the The Court found that the 8-day complete term that must elapse between debates referred to in Article 160-1 was not respected. The Court considered that it was a subsanctible vice and thus returned to Congress the law to be passed in the second debate in the House of Representatives, in accordance with the Political Charter23.

It should be specified elsewhere than in the application of similar criteria, but this time specifically in relation to the configuration of a vice for the unfulfilled or the requirement stated in the article 8o of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 the Court in Autos 03824 and 13625 of 2004, -concerning the processing of presidential objections-pointed out the subsainable character of the procedural vice consisting of the non-citation prior to the debate and vote of a project and ordered the return of the respective bills to correct the vice in which26was incurred.

Now, the Court considers that the criteria laid down in the decisions referred to are applicable in the present case, especially when it is a law approving a treaty which by its nature and the characteristics of the control of the constitutionality to which they are submitted (art. 241-8)27 it is impossible to ratify the respective international instrument until the exequability of the instrument and its approval law is declared by the Court.

This possibility is also evident because, with the exception of the vice to which reference has been made, the process of the project that culminated in the issuance of the Law 900 of 2004 was fulfilled in its entirety in harmony with the Constitution as is apparent from the count made in the relevant sections of this providence.

To this end, it is important to add that in order to clean up the vice that has been incurred, it is not necessary to redo the legislative process in its entirety while the possibility of sanitation does not imply, contrary to what the Attorney General says. General of the Nation, unawareness of other procedural requirements such as the one set out in the article 162 above.

In this respect, it is necessary to specify that the time limit referred to in article 162 above according to which "no bill may be considered in more than two legislatures" is only This is a predictable process for the Congress, but not for the automatic review entrusted to the Constitutional Court.

Thus, given that the procedure to be dealt with for the purposes of the vice-healing of the identified vice is a consequence of the exercise of the control carried out by the Court (art. 241-10), it cannot be understood that In these circumstances, the requirement that the procedure be taken up in maximum two terms is unknown (art. 162 C.P.), since this one is preaches to the action of the legislator-which in the present case the draft law in that time, as is clear from the The Court has analyzed the legislative file analyzed by the Court, but not the consequences that arise from the exercise of the control of constitutionality, which are governed by the superior and legal mandates that permit the consolidation of the procedure (paragraph of article 241 C.P., article 202 of Law 5 of 1992 and article 45 of the Decree 2067 of 1991)28.

I do not therefore attend to the Attorney General and from this perspective there is no doubt about the healing nature of the identified vice.

It could be argued that in these circumstances it is the configuration of a "competition vice" as long as the mandate contained in the article 149 higher according to which: " Any meeting of members of Congress who, for the purpose of exercising their own functions of the legislative branch of the public authority, is performed outside of the constitutional conditions, shall not be valid '; and' any acts which it carries out may not have any effect, and those who participate in The deliberations shall be sanctioned in accordance with the laws. "

The Court draws attention to the fact that the mandate referred to in that article must be interpreted within the specific context of the Chapter of the Constitution in which it is inserted, namely Chapter 2 of Title VI of the Constitution on the Legislative Branch, whose article refers to the general conditions of the meeting and the functioning of the Congress29 chapter that has a scope that must necessarily be differentiated from Chapter 3 of the same Title VI of the Constitution in which the rules of procedure are specifically laid down for the processing of laws.

It should be added that if the interpretation of the scope of the article 142 above that has been referenced, any procedural vice in the formation of a law of the Those referred to in Chapter 3 of Title VI of the Constitution-even those that have been identified in the Corporation's settled case law as subsables-would set up a vice of competition that would necessarily invalidate the of the legislator as it would make it ineffective. Conclusion that all lights are unreasonable.

3. The action to be taken for the sanitation of the vicia identified by the Court

Thus, it is clear to the Court that in the present case, a procedural defect is configured that, because it is subsable, does not carry the declaration of inexequibility of the bill that is being examined, since the principles and rules are not altered. of the legislative function and in particular the mandates contained in the Constitution on the approval of the bills, as well as the principle of the consequent30, can roll back the action to amend the fault in the If the case has been dealt with in the present case, it will order the process of the Draft law by means of which the "Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" is approved, in the city of Lima, on 23 March. November 2001, from the vote for the second debate in the Senate of the Republic.

In that order of ideas in application of the principle of instrumentality of procedural forms31, the Court will order through the General Secretariat the referral to the Senate of the Republic of the file so that in the Thirty (30) days counted from his arrival at the Senate Presidency (art. 45 of Decree 2067 of 1991)32, the vice in which the vote was incurred is remedied and the vote in Second debate in the Plenary of the Legislative Chamber, fulfilling the requirement established in article 8o of Legislative Act No. 01 of 2003, whose ignorance is precisely the one that has been identified by the Court.

passage of the bill of law in the House of Representatives [passage from the House of Representatives of the House of Representatives of the Representatives of the Representatives of the Representatives of the Representatives of the National Assembly of the European Union of Representatives of the National Assembly of the European Union [passage of the law of the country Therefore, once the vice that has been identified by the Court in the terms already entered into the Senate of the Republic has been sanitized, the respective bill will have to be sent to the House of Representatives, in order to continue the process in First and second debate in this House, which will have to be concluded by 16 December 2005.

Once sanctioned by the President of the Republic, the Law, through which the " Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala" is approved, is approved. Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on November 23, 2001, is to be referred to the Constitutional Court, in order to decide definitively on its constitutionality.

On the merits of the above, the S wing of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Colombia, administering justice on behalf of the people and by mandate of the Constitution,

RESOLVES:

First. Declare that there is a procedural defect in the procedure of Law 900 of 2004, through which the " Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on 23 November 2001, which is liable to be amended, in accordance with the paragraph of Article 241 of the Constitution.

Second. Order through the General Secretariat the referral to the Senate of the Republic of the file of the Law sub examine, so that in the term of thirty (30) days, counted from its arrival to the Presidency of the Senate, the vote will be held in the second debate in the Plenary of the Legislative House of the bill, through which the " Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, 23 de November 2001 meeting the requirement set out in article 8o of Legislative Act number 01, 2003.

Third. Ordering that once the previous procedure has been completed, the Senate of the Republic will refer to the House of Representatives the respective bill, in order to continue with the procedure in the first and second debate in this House. Chamber, which shall be completed by 16 December 2005.

Fourth. Ordering that once sanctioned by the President of the Republic the law, by means of which the "Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic" is approved Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on November 23, 2001, is referred to the Constitutional Court, in order to decide definitively on its constitutionality.

Notify and comply.

The Magistrates,

Unreadable signature, (with vote save);

ALFREDO BELTRAN SIERRA, (with vote save);

MANUEL JOSÉ CEPEDA ESPINOSA; JAIME CÓRDOBA TRIVIÑO, (with vote-saving);

RODRIGO ESCOBAR GIL; MARCO GERARDO MONROY CABRA; HUMBERTO SIERRA PORTO; ALVARO TAFUR GALVIS; CLARA INES VARGAS HERNANDEZ; (with salvage vote).

The General Secretariat,

MARTHA V. SACHICA DE MONCALEANO.

LAW ... 2006

(March 3)

by means of which the "Convention of Technical, Scientific and Technological Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" is approved, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-third day (23) November of two thousand one (2001).

THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

Having regard to the text of the "Convention of Technical, Scientific and Technological Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001), which to the letter says:

(To be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of the International Instrument mentioned).

BILL NUMBER 108 OF 2002 SENATE

By means of which the "Basic Conv of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia"approved, made in the city of Lima, The twenty-three (23) day of November two thousand one (2001).

THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

Having regard to the text of the "Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001), which to the letter says:

(To be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of the International Instrument mentioned).

BASIC TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA AND THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA

The Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, hereinafter the Parties;

ENCOURAGED by the desire to strengthen the traditional bonds of friendship between the two countries;

TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION that both Parties have been carrying out technical and scientific cooperation actions under the Agreement of Technical Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogotá, Colombia on 13 June. July 1976;

CONSCIOUS of their common interest in promoting and promoting technical and scientific progress and the mutual advantages that would result from cooperation in fields of mutual interest;

CONVINCED of the importance of updating and strengthening mechanisms that contribute to the development of this process and the need to implement technical and scientific cooperation programs that have an effective impact on economic progress and of their respective countries;

The following have been agreed:

ARTICLE I.

1. The objective of this Convention is to promote technical and scientific cooperation between the two countries, through the formulation and implementation, by common agreement, of programmes and projects in these areas.

2. In the preparation of these programmes and projects, the Parties shall take into account the priorities set out in their respective development plans and support the participation, in their implementation, of bodies and institutions of the sectors public, private and social, as well as universities, scientific and technical research institutions and non-governmental organizations.

The Parties should also take into consideration the importance of implementing national development projects and encourage the implementation of joint technological development projects, which will link research centers with industrial entities of the two countries.

3. The Parties may, on the basis of this Convention, conclude complementary technical and scientific cooperation agreements in specific areas of common interest.

TORTICULO II.

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the Parties shall jointly develop Biennial Programmes, in accordance with the priorities of both countries in the field of their respective economic and social development plans and strategies.

2. Each programme must specify objectives, financial and technical resources, work schedules, as well as the areas in which the projects will be implemented. They shall also specify the operational and financial obligations of each Party. 3. Each Programme will be evaluated at the mid-term of the Joint Commission in the framework of a bilateral meeting of technical work.

TORTICULO III.

1. In the implementation of the programmes, the participation of multilateral and regional technical cooperation bodies, as well as of third-country institutions, shall be encouraged and included, where the Parties consider it necessary.

2. The Parties may, whenever they consider it necessary and by mutual agreement, request the financing and participation of international and other countries in the implementation of programs and projects to be agreed upon in accordance with the Present Convention.

TORTICULO IV.

For the purposes of this Convention, technical and scientific cooperation between the Parties may assume the following modalities:

a) Exchange of specialists, researchers and university professors;

b) internships for professional training and training;

(c) Joint and coordinated implementation of programmes and/or research and/or technological development projects linking research centres and industry;

d) Exchange of information on scientific and technological research;

e) Development of joint cooperation activities in third countries;

f) Grant of scholarships for professional specialization studies and intermediate technical training studies;

g) Organization of seminars, workshops and conferences;

h) Consulting services station;

i) Sending equipment and material needed for the execution of specific projects, and

j) Any other mode agreed by the Parties.

TORTICULO V.

In order to have an appropriate mechanism to monitor the cooperation actions provided for in this Convention and to achieve the best conditions for its implementation, the Parties shall establish a Guatemalan-Colombian Joint Commission, made up of representatives of both governments, as well as those institutions whose activities have a direct impact on the technical and scientific cooperation of both countries.

This Joint Committee will be chaired by the Secretariat of Planning and Programming of the Presidency, by Guatemala, and by the Colombian Agency for International Cooperation, in conjunction with the Directorate-General for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by Colombia, and will have the following functions:

a) Evaluate and delimit priority areas in which specific technical and scientific cooperation projects would be feasible;

b) Study and recommend programs and projects to run;

c) Review, analyze and approve the Biennial Programs of technical and scientific cooperation;

d) Monitor the proper observance and compliance with this Convention and to make recommendations to the Parties that it considers relevant.

TORTICULO VI.

1. The Joint Committee will meet in Guatemala and Colombia in an alternate way every two years, on the dates previously agreed through the official route.

2. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, each Party may, at any time, submit specific technical and scientific cooperation projects to the other Party for due consideration and, where appropriate, for approval. The Parties may also convene extraordinary meetings of the Joint Committee, by mutual agreement and when deemed necessary.

ARTICULO VII.

Both Parties shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the experiences acquired by their nationals, as a result of the cooperation referred to in Article IV, are replicated within their respective institutions to contribute to the economic and social development of their countries.

TORTICULO VIII.

In the shipment of personnel referred to in Article IV, the international transportation costs of one of the Parties to the territory of the Other Party shall be borne by the party that sends it. The cost of lodging, feeding and local transport shall be covered by the receiving Party, unless expressly specified otherwise or subject to the supplementary agreements referred to in Article I, numeral 3, of the present Convention.

TORTICULO IX.

The national bodies and institutions responsible for the implementation of the supplementary agreements referred to in Article 1 (3) of this Convention shall inform the Joint Committee of the results of their work and submit proposals for further development of cooperation.

TORTICULO X.

Each Party will provide the necessary facilities for the entry, stay and departure of the personnel, who will be officially involved in the cooperation projects. This staff shall be subject to the national provisions in force in the receiving country and shall not be able to engage in any activity other than his or her duties, or receive any remuneration, outside those established, without the prior authorization of the authorities. competent.

TORTICULO XI.

The Parties shall grant all administrative and fiscal facilities necessary for the entry and exit of equipment and materials to be used in the implementation of the projects, in accordance with their existing national legislation.

ARTICULO XII.

In relation to the exchange of information and its dissemination, the laws and other provisions in force in both States, as well as the respective international commitments and the rights and obligations to be agreed upon in relation to the third parties. Where the information is provided by a Party, the Party may, when it considers it appropriate, indicate restrictions for its dissemination.

TORTICULO XIII.

Contracting Parties commit to:

Grant experts, instructors and technicians who receive their countries, under the present Convention, the special prerogatives and privileges granted to international experts of Technical Assistance in accordance with the current regulations for the experts of the United Nations.

TORTICULO XIV.

1. This Convention shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the second of the Notes by which the Parties communicate to have complied with the requirements of their national legislation for that purpose and shall be effective. Five-year initial, renewable for periods of equal duration, after evaluation.

2. This Convention may be amended by mutual consent and the agreed amendments shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties, by means of an Exchange of Diplomatic Notes, communicate the fulfilment of the conditions required by the Convention. national legislation.

3. Any Party may, at any time, terminate this Convention by written notification addressed to the Other through the diplomatic route, six months in advance.

4. The termination of this Convention shall not affect the completion of programmes and projects which have been formalised during their lifetime.

5. Any dispute which may arise between the parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall be settled by direct negotiations between them. In the event that these negotiations are successful, the dispute will be subjected to the remaining means of peaceful resolution recognized by international law.

6. Upon entry into force of this Convention, the Convention on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogotá, Colombia, on 13 July 1976, shall be without effect without prejudice to the actions of the scheduled and running cooperation of the complementary agreements that are running.

Made in the city of Lima, on the 23rd of November of two thousand one, in two original copies in Spanish, being both texts equally valid.

By the Government of the Republic of Guatemala,

(Unreadable Signature)

By the Government of the Republic of Colombia,

(Unreadable Signature)

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

BOGOTA, D. C., March 5, 2002

APPROVED. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for the constitutional effects.

(Fdo.) ANDRES PASTRANA ARANGO

The Foreign Minister,

(Fdo.) GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ DE SOTO.

DECRETA:

Article 1o. I approved the Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) November of two mil uno (2001).

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the "Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" The city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001), which by article 1 of this law is approved, will force the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

Article 3o. This law governs from the date of its publication.

Dada en Bogotá, D.C., a los ...

Presented to the honorable Congress of the Republic by the undersigned Minister of Foreign Affairs,

MARIA CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Honorable Senators and Representatives:

On behalf of the National Government and in compliance with articles 150 numeral 16 and 189 numeral 2 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, presented to the honorable Congress of the Republic the Bill by means of which is approved the " Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three day (23) November of two thousand one (2001).

At the Working Meeting of the 2000-2002 Colombia-Guatemala Cooperation Program, held in Bogota on 15 May 2000, Guatemala, I consider it necessary to sign a new Basic Cooperation Agreement between the two countries, to amend the Article II (3) of the Convention signed in 1976, and to introduce the creation of the Joint Committee and the mechanism of follow-up meetings of previously established projects. Also, new modalities of cooperation were incorporated through the sending of experts and a dispute settlement clause, which was not previously contemplated.

fact, this Convention will be a unique framework for promoting the cooperation that has been developed with Guatemala in the fields of environment, education and culture, justice, health, mines and energy, integration and Community development and tourism.

The Convention is part of a group of cooperation agreements that Colombia has signed, with the aim of establishing new and appropriate cooperation bases, especially with the countries of Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean, in development of constitutional policies, and within the framework of regional integration.

The clauses of this Convention establish reciprocal commitments and conditions for cooperation on the basis of balanced benefits and consideration, through which the Parties seek a fruitful exchange of techniques and science. for the mutual benefit of Colombia and Guatemala.

This Convention maintains the spirit of technical cooperation among developing countries (CTPD), mapped out by the United Nations in the Buenos Aires Plan of Action of 1978, as an important instrument of solidarity and growth among countries. siblings.

Both in the Preamble and in the article, common expressions of good will of the Parties are recorded, in order to promote and stimulate the actions of cooperation, which since 13 July 1976 were being carried out between the two countries.

In the second article, it was agreed to draw up the Biennial Programs according to the priorities of both countries, and each program will have to specify objectives, financial and technical resources, work schedules, as well as in which the projects will be implemented. Each Program will be evaluated in the middle of the Joint Commission period.

In the third article, it was agreed that when the Parties consider it necessary there will be participation of multilateral and regional technical cooperation bodies as well as institutions of third countries and, if deemed necessary, they can request the financing and participation of international and other countries.

In the fourth article, it was agreed to develop the various forms of cooperation such as: exchange of scientific staff, experts and university professors, technical training for the improvement of skills and specializations through scholarships, courses, seminars, and exchange of information and supplies of equipment and materials necessary for the execution of programs and projects.

In the fifth article, the Guatemalan-Colombian Joint Commission is established, which will be composed of representatives of both governments, as well as representatives of institutions whose activities have an impact directly on the technical and scientific cooperation.

the Joint Committee will have to evaluate and delimit priority areas for the implementation of specific technical and scientific cooperation projects and to study projects to be implemented. In addition, it will review, analyse and approve the Bienal Programme for technical and scientific cooperation and monitor the proper observance of the Convention.

In the sixth article, it was agreed that the Joint Commission will meet each other in Guatemala and Colombia every two years, on officially agreed dates, leaving the possibility of carrying out extraordinary meetings of the Joint Commission, to submit specific projects to the Parties for consideration.

With a view to the fact that the experiences acquired by our nationals, as a result of the cooperation, are replicated within the various institutions that contribute to the economic and social development of the countries, it was agreed, in the article seventh, that each of the States will take measures to fulfill this purpose.

In Article 8, both Parties agree that the international transport costs of one of the Parties to the territory of the Other Party shall be borne by the party that sends it. The cost of hosting, feeding and local transport shall be covered by the receiving Party, unless otherwise specified or subject to supplementary agreements.

In Article 9, the Parties agree that the national bodies and national institutions responsible for implementing the supplementary agreements referred to in Article 1 (3) of the Convention shall inform the Joint Committee on the results of their work and submit proposals for further development of cooperation.

In article 10, it is agreed that each of the Parties will grant the necessary facilities for the entry, permanence and departure of the personnel, who will be officially involved in the cooperation projects. This staff shall be subject to the national provisions in force in the receiving country and shall not be able to engage in any activity other than his or her duties, or receive any remuneration, outside the prescribed period, without prior authorization from the authorities. competent.

In Article 11, the Parties undertake to grant all the administrative and fiscal facilities necessary for the entry and exit of equipment and materials to be used in the implementation of the projects, in accordance with their National legislation in force.

In Article 12, the two countries agree that the exchange of information and its dissemination will be done in accordance with the current rules.

In Article 13, the Parties undertake to grant to the experts, instructors and technicians who receive their countries the special prerogatives and privileges granted to international technical assistance experts, in accordance with the Regulations in force for the experts of the United Nations.

In Article 14, it is established that the Convention shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the second of the Notes by which the Parties communicate that they have complied with the requirements of their national legislation, and that it will have an initial term of five years, renewable for periods of equal duration.

The Convention may be modified by mutual consent and, in the event, either Party may terminate it by written notification through the diplomatic route six months in advance, without affecting the conclusion of the agreement. of the programmes and projects formalised during their lifetime.

Any dispute arising between the Parties shall be resolved by direct negotiations and in the event that these are not successful, the dispute shall be subject to the means of peaceful resolution recognized by International Law.

It is necessary to stress that this Convention obeys the desire of the two countries to promote and promote the economic and social development of their peoples for the benefit of both parties, contemplating the mechanisms necessary to set the cooperation tone existing with the world reality.

In view of the above, the National Government, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, submits to the honorable Congress of the Republic the " Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001).

Of the honorable Congressmen,

The Foreign Minister,

MARIA CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

1998 424 LAW

(January 13)

by which the follow-up to the international conventions
signed by Colombia is ordered.

COLOMBIA CONGRESS

DECRETA:

Article 1o. The National Government through the Foreign Ministry will submit annually to the Senate and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, and within the first thirty days of the legislative period, which begins every 20 years. July, a detailed report on how the existing International Conventions signed by Colombia with other States are being complied with and developed.

Article 2o. Each dependency of the National Government responsible for implementing the International Treaties of its competence and requiring reciprocity in them, will transfer the relevant information to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Second.

Article 3o. The full text of this law will be incorporated as an annex to each and every International Convention that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents to the Congress.

Article 4o. This law governs from its promulgation.

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

AMYLKAR ACOSTA MEDINA.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

PEDRO PUMAREJO VEGA.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

CARLOS SQUIRLA BALLESTEROS.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

DIEGO VIVAS TAFUR.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Publish and execute.

Dada en Santa Fe de Bogotá, D. C., on January 13, 1998.

ERNESTO SAMPER PIZANO

The Foreign Minister,

MARIA EMMA MEJIA VELEZ.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., at 5 March 2002.

Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for the constitutional effects.

(Fdo.) ANDRES PASTRANA ARANGO

The Foreign Minister,

(Fdo.) GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ DE SOTO.

DECRETA:

ARTICULO 1o. Approve the "Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-third day (23) November of two thousand one (2001).

ARTICULO 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the " Basic Convention of Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty-three (23) of November of two thousand one (2001), which under article 1 of this law is approved, will force the country from the date on which the international bond is perfected. same.

ARTICULO 3o. This law governs from the date of its publication.

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

BARBERI ' S CLAUDIA BLUM.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

EMILIO RAMON OTERO DAJUD.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

JULY E. GALLARDO ARCHBOLD.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

ANGELINO LIZANO RIVERA.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Publish and comply.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., a 3 de marzo de 2006.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, in charge of the office of the Foreign Minister,

CAMILO REYES RODRIGUEZ.

Execute prior review of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to article 241-10 of the Constitution and of the 2005 Auto-088 (Expediente L.A.T. -273).

1 Folio 20 of the Expedient.

2 Folio 39 of the Expedient.

3 According to Judgment C-468 of 1997, this control is characterized by being (i) prior to the improvement of the treaty, but after the approval of the Congress and the governmental sanction; (ii) automatic, since it must be sent directly per the President of the Republic to the Constitutional Court within six days of the government sanction; (iii) integral, in so far as the Court must analyze both the formal aspects and the materials of the law and the treaty, confronting them with all the constitutional text; (iv) has force of res judicata; (v) is a condition sine qua non for the ratification of the corresponding agreement; and (vi) performs a preventive function, for its purpose is to guarantee both the supremacy of the Constitution and the compliance of the international commitments of the Colombian State.

As to the control by procedural defects that the Court exercises over international treaties and the laws that approve them, as prescribed in article 241 numeral 10 Superior, This is aimed both at examining the validity of the representation of the Colombian State in the processes of negotiation and the conclusion of the instrument and the competence of the officials in the negotiation and signing of the treaty, such as the fulfillment of the rules on the formation of the approval law in the Congress. See in the same sense, among many others, the sentences C-400/98 M. P. Alejandro Martínez Caballero; C-834/01 M. P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra; C-363/00, and C718/04 M. P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis; and C-333/05 M. P. Jaime Córdoba Trivino

4 See, among others the Sentences C-333/05 M.P. Jaime Cordoba Trivinoy C-533 2004 M.P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis S.V. Jaime Araujo Renteria; and the 2004 Auto 038 M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Spiny.

5 Constitutional Court, Judgment C-644 , 2004, M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil, S.V. Rodrigo Uprimny

Yepes.

6 Constitutional Court, Judgment C-644 , 2004, M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil, S.V. Rodrigo Uprimny

Yepes.

7 The Attorney General of the Nation warns that in accordance with the constitutional case law, it is only possible to remedy procedural defects: (i) on the basis of a procedure which has actually been carried out; (ii) in those events where it is not necessary to redo the legislative procedure in its entirety for its correction, and (iii) where the opportunity for its correction has not yet been Such that they cannot be subsated so that they do not imply a lack of knowledge of other procedural requirements such as the one set out in the article 162 above.

It states that in the case of the bill approving the Convention under study it is clear that it is a matter of: " ... a that was actually carried out, since it is a law approved and sanctioned, and consequently not It would be necessary to advance the procedure in its entirety, as the article 8 ° of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 was only stopped by the Senate in the second debate. In this order of ideas, the Court may order the return of the law to the Congress so that it will remedy the vice observed in accordance with the provisions of the article 241 above. (...) ".

However, it notes that the bill examined was considered in the legislatures that passed between July 20, 2002 to June 20, 2003, and July 20, 2003 to June 20, 2004, which means Two legislatures have already passed, between the presentation of the project and its approval. In these terms, he concludes that: " ...the deadlines given by the Constitution for the approval of the 2004 Law 900 are defeated, which prevents the Court from ordering its return to the Senate. the Republic for the correction of the defect warned (...) by the conduct of the corresponding debate, prior notice that the project would be put to a vote in different session, because with it would be violated the article 162 constitutional ... ", so that the It is not possible to correct the procedural vice that was incurred in passing the Law 900 of 2004 this must be declared inexequable.

8 It is not enough to specify that the specific circumstances referred to by the Court in the 2004 C553/04 and C-661 judgments are not met in the present case, as there was indeed an announcement for the Court of Justice. Next plenary session (Judgment C-553/04 M.P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis. S.V. Jaime Araujo Renteria) well the prior and certain knowledge of the Congressmen on the conduct of the vote (Statement C-661 of 2004 M.P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra. S.V. Jaime Araujo Renteria).

9 See, among others the sentences C-737/01 M.P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett.; C-872/02 M.P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett A.V. of the Magistrates Alfredo Beltrán Sierrra and Jaime Araujo Renteria. Likewise, the Auto of 24 September 2003 M.P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis.

10 About it, see 2001 C-737 statement M.P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett.

11 See Statement C-872/02 M.P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett A.V. (from the Magistrates Alfredo Beltran Sierrra and Jaime Araujo Renteria.

12 See Paloma Biglino Campos. The vices in the legislative procedure. Madrid, Center for Constitutional Studies, 1991, pp. 36 and ss.

13 Statement C-055 of 1995. M.P. Alejandro Martínez Caballero, Fundamento 8.

14 See Decision No 225 of 23 January 1987 of the French Constitutional Council. At a more general level, see Paloma Biglino Campos. op. cit., pages. 134 and ss.

15 See, among many others the 1995 C-225 and the 1998 C-400 Sentences.

16 Statement C-032 of 1996. M.P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo. In the same sense, see C-266 Sentences of 1995 and C-1707 of 2000.

17 The majority position of the Court is that this Corporation can only carry out such a reorganization when it comes to ordinary laws that have been dealt with in the process of organic law, since the Court's decision only can have the decrease in the category of a given law; that is, that this Corporation could not attribute to the rule accused a hierarchy or binding force greater than the one that the Congress wanted to attribute to it, since with this it would be limiting the democratic principle. However, the judges Eduardo Montealegre and Manuel José Cepeda considered, in the clarification of the vote to the judgment Case C-579 2001, that the Court could also make a pronouncement of the second type, that is, declare that a nominally ordinary law, is in fact an organic law, for having met the requirements of the fund required by the Charter-namely that the matter which is the subject of the regulation is part of the reserve of organic law, and that the corresponding majorities have been presented, and for missing only the requirement This is the reason that there has been an express legislative will, in the sense that it is an organic law (cf. Statement C-540/01). In the opinion of the aforementioned magistrates, this Corporation is empowered to give greater hierarchy to a law (for example, despite having been dealt with as ordinary, reclassifying it as organic) thus subsating the mentioned vice, always and when the following requirements are met:

(a) That the system of constitutional control, whose structure imposes limits on the performance of this Corporation, will not be dismissed. Thus, for example, there are certain laws-such as statutory laws, or the approval of international treaties-that are subject to a control of constitutionality prior to their issuance; in this sense, the Court could not, by validating a vice of the type indicated, reclassify as statutory laws, legal norms that were dealt with as ordinary or as organic, as this would contravene the scheme of the same functioning of the constitutional jurisdiction;

b) That with the declaration by which the vice is intended to be corrected, the Court will not injure the democratic will of the Congress; thus, it will not be possible to declare that a law is organic, if at least the required majority vote is not presented. by the Charter, and

c] Let it be a matter of vices that do not make the return of the bill imperative to Congress, so that a stage that has been omitted is surfed.

18 See, inter alia, Case C-555 of 2000.

19 Statement C-203 of 1995. M.P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo. Consideration C.

20 Statement C-737/01 M.P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett. In the same sense, see Judgment C-872/02 M.P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett A.V. of the Magistrates; Alfredo Beltrán Sierrra and Jaime Araujo Renteria. Likewise, the Auto of 24 September 2003, M.P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis.

21 See, among others the Autos 05/95 M.P. Jorge Arango Mejia and 06/95 M.P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo and the Sentences C-008/95 and C-203/95 M.P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo.

22 See Statement C-255 of 1996, M.P. Alejandro Martínez Caballero.

23 See 1996 Statement C-002 , M.P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo.

24 At Auto 038 in 2004, M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, the project had been fully processed before the 2003 Legislative Act 01 came into force, but in the vote on the report The Senate Plenary omitted to comply with the requirement of article 8th of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, which is why the bill was returned for Congress to subsate this bill. vice.

25 At the 2004 Auto 136, M.P. Jaime Araujo Renteria, the draft law was debated and passed before the entry into force of the 2003 Legislative Act 01 , but the requirement of the article 8th of that act, was not met in relation to the insistences of the House and Senate plenary, which is why the bill was returned to Congress to subsate such a vitio of processing.

26 On Auto 038 of 2004, the requirement of item 8th was not met during processing of the

objections. The Court said the following in that order regarding the processing of presidential objections:

In this case, the vice is subsainable because the structural stages of the legislative procedure were respected and only the new requirement to announce in a previous session that it will be called for a vote at a future date was omitted. pre.jada. For the above, and in accordance with the paragraph of Article 241 of the Charter, Bill No. 48 of 2001 Senate, 212 of 2002 House of Representatives shall return to that chamber to comply with the provisions of article 8th of Legislative Act 01, 2003.

In the 2004 Auto 136, the four debates for the passage of the bill were met before the 2003 Legislative Act 01 , but the presidential objections against that bill were not dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Article 8th of that legislative act. The Court said the following:

" This way it is noted by this Court, that the precept by 1st constitutional norm referred to,

was not met with respect to the insistences made by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Republic (Art. 167 ). In other words, requiring the insistences of the House and Senate plenary sessions a special vote, this one did not meet the requirement of being previously announced, the aforementioned constitutional article being in force.

...

Thus, in this specific case and based on the precisions already noted, the Court considers that the warning vice can be remedied.

Therefore, since both Chambers incurred the pointed vice, both of them must be healed. However, the President of the Senate, who referred the bill to the Constitutional Court, will be returned to the Constitutional Court. "

27 Article 241. The Constitutional Court is entrusted with the preservation of the integrity and supremacy of the

Constitution, in the strict and precise terms of this article. To this end, you will comply with the following

functions: (...)

10. Decide on the exequibility of international treaties and the laws that approve them. To this end, the Government will forward them to the Court, within six days of the law being passed. Any citizen may intervene to defend or challenge his constitutionality. If the Court declares them constitutional, the government may carry out the exchange of letters; otherwise they will not be ratified. Where one or more of the rules of a multilateral treaty are declared inexorably by the Constitutional Court, the President of the Republic may only express consent by making a corresponding reservation.

28 See Auto on September 24, 2003 M.P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis.

29 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH TITLE VI

(...)

CHAPTER 2

MEETING AND RUNNING

Article 138. Congress, in its own right, will meet in ordinary sessions, for two periods per year, which will constitute a single legislature. The first session will begin on July 20 and end on December 16; the second on March 16 and end on June 20.

If for any cause you cannot meet on the dates indicated, you will do so as soon as possible, within the respective periods.

Congress will also meet in extraordinary sessions, due to the government's call and during

the time that you are pointing.

In the course of them you will only be able to deal with matters that the Government submits to your consideration, without prejudice to the role of political control that is your own, which you will be able to exercise at all times.

Article 139. Congress sessions will be jointly and publicly closed and closed by

the President of the Republic, without this ceremony, in the first event, to be essential for the

Congress legitimately exercises its functions.

Article 140. The Congress is based in the capital of the Republic.

The Chambers may by agreement between them move their headquarters to another location and, in the event of a public order disturbance, they will be able to meet on the site designated by the President of the Senate.

Article 141. The Congress will meet in a single body only for the installation and closing of its sessions, to give the President of the Republic, to receive the Heads of State or Government of other countries, to elect Comptroller General of the Republic and Vice President when it is necessary to replace the elected (sic) by the people, as well as to decide (sic) on the motion of censure, according to Article 135.

In such cases the President of the Senate and the House will be respectively President and Vice President of the Congress.

Article 142. Each Chamber shall elect, for the respective constitutional period, Permanent Commissions which shall deal in the first debate with the draft legislative or legislative acts.

The law will determine the number of Permanent Commissions and the number of their members, as well as the matters of which each will have to deal with each other.

When the Permanent Constitutional Commissions, the decision-making quorum, are held together

will be the one required for each of the commissions individually considered.

Article 143. The Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives may arrange for any of the Permanent Commissions to sit during the recess, with the .n to discuss the issues that have remained pending in the previous period, to carry out the studies to be determined by the respective corporation and to prepare the projects that the Chambers are responsible for.

Article 144. The sessions of the Chambers and their Permanent Commissions shall be public, with the limitations to which they may be in accordance with their rules of procedure.

Article 145. The full Congress, the Chambers and their committees will not be able to open sessions or deliberate

with less than a quarter of its members. Decisions may be taken only with the assistance of the majority of the members of the respective corporation, unless the Constitution determines a different quorum.

Article 146. In the full Congress, in the Chambers and in their standing committees, decisions will be taken by the majority of the votes of the assistants, unless the Constitution expressly requires a special majority.

Article 147. The Boards of Chambers and their Permanent Commissions will be renewed every year, for the legislature that begins on July 20, and none of its members can be re-elected within the same constitutional four-year term.

Article 148. The rules on quorum and decision-making majorities will also govern the other public corporations of popular choice.

Article 149. Any meeting of members of Congress who, for the purpose of exercising their own functions of the legislative branch of the Public Power, is carried out outside the constitutional conditions, shall not be valid. some, and those who participate in the deliberations, will be punished according to the laws.

30 On the principle of consistency see, among others, the Sentences C-702/99 M.P. Fabio Moron Diaz, C-087/01 M.P. Cristina Pardo Schlesinger, C-501/01 M.P. Jaime Córdoba Trivino, C-044/02 M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil, C-198/02 M.P. Clara Inés Vargas Hernández and C-1113/03 M.P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis.

31 See Statement C-737/01 M.P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett. In the same sense, see Judgment C-872/02 M.P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett. A.V. of the Magistrates Alfredo Beltran Sierrra and Jaime Araujo Renteria. Likewise, the Auto of 24 September 2003 M.P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis.

32 Article 45. When the Court finds procedural defects in the formation of the act subject to its control, it will order to return it to the authority that proffect it so that within the term that the Court establishes, if possible, it will amend the observed defect. The Court will proceed to decide on the constitutionality of the act. That term shall not exceed 30 days from the time when the authority is capable of subsating it.

Ir al inicio