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$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
ACT 900 OF 2004
(July 21)
Official Gazette No. 45,618, of July 23, 2004
Official Gazette No. 46199 of March 3, 2006 PUBLIC POWER
- || LEGISLATIVE BRANCH |
Through which the "Basic Agreement on 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 (23) is approved November two thousand and one (2001). Summary

Term Notes
THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC
having regard to the text of the Basic Agreement on 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, the twenty-third ( 23) November two thousand and one (2001), which reads:
(to be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached). BILL 108
2002
SENATE through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" was approved, made in the Lima, on the twenty (23) November two thousand and one (2001).
THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC
having regard to the text of the Basic Agreement on 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, the twenty-third ( 23) November two thousand and one (2001), which reads:
(to be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).
"BASIC AGREEMENT SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE Repulica 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 ;
Desiring to strengthen the traditional ties of friendship existing between the two countries;
Considering that both parties have been carrying out actions of technical and scientific cooperation under the Agreement on Technical Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogotá, Colombia, on 13 July 1976 | || CONSCIOUS of their common interest in promoting and promoting technical and scientific and reciprocal advantages that would result from cooperation in areas of mutual interest progress;
CONVINCED of the importance of updating and strengthening mechanisms that contribute to the development of this process and the need to implement programs of technical and scientific cooperation, that are effective in economic and social progress of their respective countries;
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 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 mutual agreement, programs and projects in these areas.
2. In developing these programs and projects, the Parties shall take into account the priorities set out in their respective development plans and support involvement in their implementation, organizations and institutions in the public, private and social sectors as well as universities , institutions of scientific and technical research and non-governmental organizations.
Likewise, the Parties shall take into account the importance in the implementation of national development projects and promote the implementation of joint technological development, linking research centers with industrial entities of the two countries.
3. The Parties may, based on this Agreement, conclude supplementary agreements for technical and scientific cooperation in specific areas of common interest.

ARTICLE II.

1. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Parties shall jointly develop biennial programs in accordance with the priorities of both countries in the field of their respective plans and strategies for economic and social development.
2. Each program must specify objectives, financial and technical resources, work schedules, as well as areas where projects will be executed. They must also specify the operating sy financial obligations of each of the Parties.
3. Each program will be evaluated at mid-term of the Joint Commission in the framework of a bilateral technical working meeting.

ARTICLE III.

1. In the implementation of the programs will be encouraged and will include, as the Parties deem it necessary, the participation of multilateral and regional technical cooperation agencies and institutions of third countries.

2. The Parties may, whenever they deem necessary and by mutual agreement, seek financing and participation of international organizations and other countries in the implementation of programs and projects to be agreed in accordance with this Convention.

ARTICLE IV.

For the purposes of this Agreement, technical and scientific cooperation between the Parties may take the following forms:
a) Exchange of specialists, researchers and university professors;
B) Internships and training for professional training;
C) joint and coordinated programs Making and / or research projects and / or technological development linking research centers and industry;
D) Exchange of information on scientific and technological research;
E) Development of joint cooperation activities in third countries;
F) Granting scholarships for professional specialization and intermediate studies of technical training;
G) organization of seminars, workshops and conferences;
H) Provision of consulting services;
I) Shipment of equipment and necessary for the implementation of specific projects material and
j) Any other form agreed upon by the Parties.
Article V.


In order to have an adequate mechanism MONIT or cooperation measures provided for in this Agreement and establishing the best conditions for its implementation, the Parties shall establish a Colombian-Guatemalan, Joint Commission composed of representatives of both governments, as well as those institutions whose activities directly affect the field of technical and scientific cooperation of both countries.
This Joint Committee will be chaired by the Ministry of Planning and Programming of the Presidency, by Guatemala, and the Colombian Agency for International Cooperation, in conjunction with the Directorate General of International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by of Colombia, and will have the following functions:
a) to evaluate and define priority areas in which specific projects of technical and scientific cooperation would be feasible;
B) To study and recommend programs and projects to be implemented;
C) Review, analyze and approve the biennial programs of technical and scientific cooperation;
D) Supervise the proper observance and implementation of this Agreement and formulate recommendations to the Parties as it deems pertinent.

ARTICLE VI.

1. The Joint Commission shall meet every two years alternately in Guatemala and Colombia, on the dates previously agreed upon through official channels.
2. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, each Party may submit for the consideration of the Other, at any time, specific projects of technical and scientific cooperation for appropriate analysis and, where appropriate, approval. Parties may also convened by mutual agreement and when they deem it necessary, extraordinary meetings of the Joint Commission.

ARTICLE VII.

Both Parties shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the lessons learned by their nationals as a result of the cooperation that Article IV referred to replicate internally to their respective institutions to contribute to economic and social development their countries.

ARTICLE VIII.

In sending personnel to Article IV refers, international transport costs of one of the Parties to the territory of the other, shall be borne by the party ship. The cost of lodging, meals and local transportation will be covered by the receiving Party, unless expressly specified otherwise or is the subject of the supplementary Article I, paragraph 3, of this Conve nio refers to agreements.

Article IX.
Agencies and institutions responsible for the execution of supplementary agreements provided for in Article I, paragraph 3, of this Convention national institutions must report to the Joint Committee the results of its work and submit proposals for the further development of cooperation .
Article X.


Each Party shall provide the necessary staff out facilities for entry, residence and who are officially involved in the cooperation projects. Such personnel shall be subject to national provisions in force in the receiving country and may not engage in any activity unrelated to their duties, or receive any remuneration, outside established without the prior authorization of the competent authorities.

ARTICLE XI.


Parties all administrative and fiscal facilities necessary for the entry and exit of equipment and materials to be used in carrying out the projects in accordance with its national legislation be awarded.

Article XII.

In connection with the exchange of information and its dissemination, laws and other provisions in force in both States shall be observed as well as the respective international commitments and the rights and obligations agreed in relation to third parties. When information is provided by a Party, that may indicate, when appropriate, restrictions for broadcast.

Article XIII.

The Contracting Parties undertake to:
To grant and experts, technical instructors receive their countries, in implementing this Convention, privileges and special privileges granted to international experts Technical Assistance accordance with regulations force for United Nations experts.

Article XIV.

1. This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the second of the Notes by which the Parties notify each have complied with the requirements of national legislation to this end and will have an initial term of five years, renewable for equal periods, after evaluation.
2. This Agreement may be amended by mutual consent and the agreed amendments shall enter into vi gor on the date on which the Parties, by an exchange of diplomatic notes, meeting the requirements of national legislation to communicate.
3 Any Party may, at any time, terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the other Party through diplomatic channels six months in advance.
4. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the completion of programs and projects which have been formalized during its term.
5. Any dispute that may arise between the parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall be resolved through direct negotiations between them. If these negotiations are not successful the dispute shall be submitted to the other means recognized by international law peaceful solution.
6. Upon entry into force this Convention shall terminate on the Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogotá, Colombia, on July 13, 1976, subject to the cooperation activities scheduled and implementation of supplementary agreements that are running.
Made in Lima, on 23 November two thousand and one, in two original copies in Spanish, both texts being equally authentic.
For the Government of the Republic of Guatemala,
Illegible signature.
For the Government of the Republic of Colombia,
Illegible signature. " RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, March 5, 2002
Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.)
Andres Pastrana Minister of Foreign Affairs,
(FDO.) Guillermo Fernandez de Soto. DECREES
:

ARTICLE 1o. Approval of the Basic Agreement on 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001).
Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the Basic Agreement on 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, the day twenty (23) November two thousand and one (2001), that article 1 of this law is passed, it will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.

ARTICLE 3. This law applies from the date of publication.
DADA IN BOGOTA, DC, A ...
Presented to the Honorable Congress signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs Maria Carolina Barco Isakson
. STATEMENT OF MOTIVES

Honorable Senators and Representatives:
I
On behalf of the Government and in compliance with Articles 150, paragraph 16 and 189, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Colombia, presented for consideration by the Congress of the Republic the draft law by which the Convention was adopted basic 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001).
At the Working Meeting Cooperation Programme 2000-2002 Colombia-Guatemala, held in Bogota on May 15, 2000, Guatemala considered it necessary to sign a new Basic Agreement of Cooperation between the two countries, to modify paragraph 3 of Article II of the Agreement signed in 1976, and introduce the creation of the Joint Commission and the mechanism for follow-up meetings previously established projects. Also, new forms of cooperation were incorporated through the dispatch of experts and dispute resolution clause, which was not previously provided.
Indeed, this Convention constitutes a framework of singular importance to promoting cooperation that has been developed with Guatemala in the areas 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 has been signed, Colombia, with the aim to establish new and appropriate basis for cooperation, especially with countries in Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean in policy development constitutional and within the framework of regional integration.
The provisions of this Convention provide reciprocal commitments and conditions for cooperation on the basis of performance and balanced consideration, by which the parties seek a fruitful exchange of technical and science for the mutual benefit of Colombia and Guatemala.
This agreement maintains the spirit of technical cooperation among developing countries (TCDC), drawn up by the United Nations in the Plan of Action of Buenos Aires, 1978, as an important instrument of solidarity and growth among neighboring countries.
Both the preamble and the first article common expressions of good will of the parties are committed, to encourage and stimulate cooperative action, which since July 13, 1976 were being made between the two countries.
In the second article the preparation of the biennial programs in accordance with the priorities of both countries agreed, and each program must specify objectives, financial and technical resources, work schedules and areas to be implemented the projects. Each program will be evaluated at mid-term of the Joint Commission.
In the third article it was agreed that if the parties deem it necessary will be participation of multilateral and regional technical cooperation agencies and institutions of third countries and, if deemed necessary, may request financing and participation of international organizations and other countries.
In the fourth article agreed to develop various forms of cooperation such as exchange of scientists, experts and university professors, technical training for improving skills and specializations through scholarships, courses, seminars and exchange of information and supply of equipment and materials necessary for the implementation of programs and projects.
Article fifth Guatemalan-Colombian Joint Commission is established, which shall be composed of representatives of both governments and representatives of institutions whose activities directly affect the field of technical and scientific cooperation.
The Joint Committee shall evaluate and identify priority areas for specific projects of technical and scientific cooperation and study proposed projects. In addition, you should review, analyze and approve the biennial program of technical and scientific cooperation and monitor the proper observance of the Convention. Article sixth
it was agreed that the Joint Commission shall meet every two years alternately in Guatemala and Colombia, on dates agreed officially, leaving the possibility of conducting extraordinary meetings of the Joint Commission for consideration of the Parties specific projects.

With a view to the experiences of our national, as a result of cooperation replicate internally in the various institutions that contribute to economic and social development of countries, it was agreed, in Article seventh, each one of the States shall take measures to fulfill this purpose.
In the eighth Article both Parties agree that the international transport costs of one of the Parties to the territory of the other, shall be borne by the party ship. The cost of lodging, meals and local transportation will be covered by the receiving Party, unless otherwise specified or is the subject of complementary agreements.
In the ninth article the Parties agree that national agencies and institutions responsible for the implementation of the supplementary agreements that are provided for in Article 3 of the Convention numeral first national institutions must report to the Joint Committee the results of its work and submit proposals for further development of cooperation.
In the tenth article it agreed that each Party shall provide the necessary facilities for the entry, stay and departure of staff, who are officially involved in the cooperation projects. Such personnel shall be subject to national provisions in force in the receiving country and may not engage in any activity unrelated to their duties, or receive any remuneration, outside the established without prior authorization of the competent authorities. In the eleventh article
Parties undertake to provide all administrative and fiscal facilities necessary for the entry and exit of equipment and materials to be used in carrying out the projects in accordance with their national legislation.
In the twelfth article the two countries agree that the exchange of information and its dissemination shall be in accordance with current standards.
Article thirteenth, the Parties undertake to grant to experts, instructors and technicians received their countries prerogatives and special privileges granted to international experts of technical assistance, in accordance with current regulations for experts United Nations.
In the fourteenth article states that the Convention enters into force from the date of receipt of the second of the Notes by which the Parties notify each have complied with the requirements of national legislation, and that it will an initial term of five years, renewable for equal periods.
The Agreement may be amended by mutual consent and, where appropriate, either party may terminate it by written notification through diplomatic channels six months in advance, without affecting the completion of the programs and formalized during its term projects.
Any dispute between the Parties shall be resolved through direct negotiations and if these are not successful, the dispute shall be submitted to the media recognized by international law peaceful solution.
It should be stressed that this agreement reflects the desire of both countries to promote and foster economic and social development of their peoples for the benefit of both sides, contemplating the necessary mechanisms to attune existing cooperation with the global reality.
Given the above, the Government, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, submitted for consideration of the honorable Congress the Basic Agreement on 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001).
Of the honorable Congressmen,
Maria Carolina Barco Isakson, Minister of Foreign Affairs
.

LAW 424 1998 (January 13)
By which follow the international agreements signed by Colombia is ordered.

THE CONGRESS OF COLOMBIA DECREES:

ARTICLE 1o. The National Government through the Foreign Ministry presented annually to the Second Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate and House, and within the first thirty calendar days after the legislative session that begins each July 20, a detailed report on how they are fulfilling and developing the existing international conventions signed by C olombia with other states.
Article 2.
. Each branch of the National Government responsible for implementing international treaties within their competence and require reciprocity in them, will communicate the relevant information to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and east to the Second Committees.


ARTICLE 3. The full text of this law shall be annexed to each of the international conventions that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs present to Congress.

ARTICLE 4. This law governs from its promulgation.
The President of the honorable Senate,
Amylkar ACOSTA MEDINA.
The Secretary General of the honorable Senate,
PUMAREJO PEDRO VEGA.
The President of the honorable Chamber of Representatives,
CARLOS ARDILA BALLESTEROS.
The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives, DIEGO VIVAS
TAFUR.
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA - NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PUBLISHED AND RUN
.
Given in Santa Fe de Bogota, DC, 13 January 1998.

Ernesto Samper Pizano Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maria Emma Mejia
VÉLEZ. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE CHAIR OF THE REPUBLIC
CIA Bogotá, DC, March 5, 2002
Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.)
Andres Pastrana Minister of Foreign Affairs,
(FDO.) Guillermo Fernandez de Soto. DECREES
:

ARTICLE 1o. Approval of the Basic Agreement on 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001).
Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the Basic Agreement on 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, the day twenty (23) November two thousand and one (2001), that article 1 of this law is passed, it will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.

ARTICLE 3. This law applies from the date of publication.
The President of the honorable Senate,
Vargas Lleras.
The Secretary General of the honorable Senate,
EMILIO RAMÓN OTERO DAJUD.
The President of the honorable Chamber of Representatives,
ALONSO ACOSTA OSIO.
The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives, ANGELINO
LIZCANO RIVERA.
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA - NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
COMMUNICATE AND COMPLY.
Run, after review by the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 241-10 of the Constitution.
Given in Bogotá, DC, July 21, 2004.

The Alvaro Uribe Foreign Minister, Carolina Barco Isakson
.
2006
LAW ... (March 3)
Official Gazette No. 46199 of March 3, 2006 PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Through which the "Basic Agreement approved Technical and Scientific Coooperación 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001). CONSTITUTIONAL COURT


Full Room A-088 AUTO 2005
REF: Record LAT-273
Constitutional review of the Law 900 of July 21, 2004, by which approves the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific cooperation links 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001) . Judge Speaker
:
GALVIS TAFUR ALVARO Bogotá, DC, three (3) May two thousand and five (2005).
The Plenum of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to its constitutional powers has issued the following
I
AUTO. BACKGROUND
The "Basic Agreement on 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001), he was signed by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Guillermo Fernandez de Soto, who acted on behalf of the Republic of Colombia1.
For its part, the President of the Republic, Dr. Andrés Pastrana Arango, gave the Convention the appropriate executive approval, March 5, 2002 and ordered consideration of Congress who processed the corresponding República2 law approving .

The National Government, through the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, reached out to the Corporation, on 26 July 2004, true photocopy of Law 900 of July 21, 2004, "through which the 'Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and che Government the Republic of Colombia' is approved, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty (23) November two thousand and one (2001) ".
By order of 26 August 2004, in order to exercise judicial review that section 10 of article 241 of the Constitution mandates the review of the Convention under study and Law 900 of 2004 was assumed that Approves It. In the same order the Secretaries-General of the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the Secretaries of the Second Committees of the Senate and House requested, send destined to process the copy reference the entire file legislation concerning the processing corresponding to Law 900 of 2004. in that order project was ordered, after the expiry of the probationary period and received the evidence requested, to notice list the process and would transfer to the Attorney General's Office to to surrender the concept of rigor. Similarly, the car was ordered in initiating the process to communicate to the President of the Republic, the President of Congress and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for the relevant legal purposes.
Revised legislative procedure followed in the adoption of Law 900 of July 21, 2004, "through which the 'Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government approved of the Republic of Colombia ', made in the city of Lima, on the twenty (23) November two thousand and one (2001) ", the Plenary Chamber of the Corporation found that the requirements under were not met in full Political Charter, as is analyzed.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
1. Competition.
In keeping with the provisions of Article 241, paragraph 10 of the Constitution, for the Court reviewing the constitutionality of international treaties and laws approving them. The Court has stated repeatedly that the said constitutional control comprises the entire contents of these legal acts, both in its formal aspects as fondo3. In this order, the Court pronounced exclusively in connection with the consideration of the constitutionality of Law 900 of July 21, 2004, "through which the 'Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001) "for its formal aspects, for which it has identified as explained passes, a vice that must be remedied by the Congress.
2. Analysis constitutionality of Law 900 of 2004 for their formal aspects
2.1 Verification procedure followed for the issuance of Law 900 of 2004
Based on the certifications sent to the Court by the Senate and House of Representatives and in the legislative history and the records published in the Gazette of the Congress, it was determined that the selection process at the Corporation for the issuance of Law 900 of 2004, was as follows: || | 2.1.2.1 the bill together with the explanatory memorandum was presented to the Senate by the National Government through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Maria Carolina Barco Isakson on October 22, 2002, and was filed under number 108 of 2002 and published in the Gazette number 446 Congress October 28, 2002 (pp. 17-20). (Folios 314-318 Dossier).

2.1.2.2 The project with its corresponding explanatory memorandum was delivered to the Second Constitutional Commission of the Senate where the first debate was filled. The paper published in the Gazette of the 195th Congress on May 12, 2003 (pp. 13-14) (Folios 319-321 Dossier) was discussed and approved with a deliberative and decision quorum of 11 votes in favor and none against of the thirteen (13) members on the Commission, at its meeting on June 18, 2003 as it stated in the Act number 29 of the same date, published in the Gazette No. 474 Congress September 15, 2003 (p. 3 ) (Folios 399-400 Dossier) and certification by August 31, 2004, sent by the Secretary General of the Second Standing Constitutional Commission of the Senate (Folio 44 of the record).
2.1.2.3 The Senate plenary forward the second debate based on the paper published in the Gazette number 309 Congress July 24, 2003 (p. 7). (Folios 87 to 94). The project was approved by 96 of the 102 Senators who make up the plenary, as stated in the Act number 06 of the September 9, 2003 published in the Gazette number 532 Congress October 10, 2003 (pp. 4-6). (Folios 332 to 337 of the file) and as certified by Secretary General of the Senate of September 13, 2004. (Folio 313 of the file).
It should be noted that as stated in Act 05, the regular meeting of September 2, 2003, published in the Gazette number 485 Congress September 22, 2003 (p. 4). (Folio 137 Notebook tests), under item IV of the agenda on reading papers and consideration of projects in second debate where it was noted that "in compliance with the Legislative Act number 01 2003 then projects relate to will be discussed and adopted at this session, "the bill 108 of 2002 Senate was included, through which the approved" Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the, Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia". This project however was not finally discussed in the aforementioned session.
Now as it appears from the record 04 corresponding to the session of August 26, 2003 published in the Gazette No. 484 of September 22, 2003, no prior to inclusion in the agenda of the meeting of 2 citation September was made at the regular meeting. August 26, -Session prior to that in which it was included in the agenda of the sub examine- bill.
Turn as stated in the Act number 06 of the September 9, 2003 published in the Gazette number 532 Congress October 10, 2003 (p. 4). (Folio 335 of the file) under item IV of the agenda on reading papers and consideration of projects in second debate, where it was noted that "in compliance with the Legislative Act number 01, 2003, then the projects discussed relate and adopted at this meeting bill 108 of 2002 Senate the "included", through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of approving Colombia". Project that was actually discussed and approved at the said meeting as noted above.
These circumstances pose a vice settings at step whose scope and consequences will be discussed later.
2.1.2.4 Once settled the bill in the House of Representatives under number 112 of 2003 House, the Second Constitutional Permanent Commission brought forward the first debate on the basis of the paper published in the Congress Gazette number 536 of 16 October 2003 (pp. 7-8) (Folios 139-146 Dossier). This project was discussed and approved attended by 17 representatives, unanimously, at its meeting of November 26, 2003, as certified by the Secretary General of the Commission Second Permanent Constitution of the House of Representatives issued on September 3, 2004. (Folio 46 of the record) and as stated in the Act number 014 of the same date published in the Gazette number 186 Congress May 10, 2004 (p. 2). (Folios 397 to 398 of the file).

Now, as stated in the Act number 013 of the regular meeting of November 25, 2003 published in the Congress Gazette number 185 of May 10, 2004, p. 2). (Folios 115-134 Dossier) within the bills whose vote was announced for the meeting on 26 November 2003 by the Secretary of the Corporation, figured the bill 112 of 2003 House, 108 2002 Senate through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Gua mala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" was approved. This being the case the Court finds that in this case was complied with the mandate contained in the last paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution.
2.1.2.5 The plenary of the House of Representatives ahead of the second debate of the bill, after the paper published in the Gazette of the 90th Congress of March 25, 2004 (pp. 9-10). (Folios 147-158 Dossier) which was discussed and approved in plenary session on June 9, 2004 by a majority of those present 160 representatives of the Corporation, as stated in the Act number 110 of the same date published in the Gazette of Congress number 391 of July 26, 2004 (pp. 54 and 55). (Folios 159-278 Dossier) and according to certification issued by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives on 30 August 2004. (Folio 137 of the file).
Now, as recorded in the minutes of the 109th meeting of June 8, 2004 published in the Congress Gazette number 365, (p. 6), in bills whose vote was announced for the session of June 9, 2004 by the Secretary of the Corporation, he figured the bill 112 of 2003 House, 108 2002 Senate, through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation approved, between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ". This being the case the Court finds that in this case was complied with the mandate contained in the last paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution.
2.1.2.6 The President enacted the law approving the Convention sub examine, on 21 July 2004 under number 900 and forwarded to the Corporation, being received on 26 July in the year two thousand and four (2004), ie, within the period provided for in Article 241-10 of the Constitution for review.
2.1.3 Failure to comply with the requirement indicated in Article 160 top-as amended by article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003, in the debate in the plenary assortment of Senate
As shows the count done before, in relation to the process for the draft sub law considered in the second debate to the Plenary of the Senate, compliance with the requirement stated in the last paragraph of Article top 160 as was amended evidenced by article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003
in this regard it is recalled that from July 3, 2003, when the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 came into force, must be fulfilled the mandate contained in Article 8th of this Legislative Act, which added a final paragraph Article 160 Constitution with the following: "No bill will be voted differently from that which has previously been announced session. Notice that a project will be put to the vote will give the presidency of each Chamber or Committee in separate session to one in which the vote will take place. "
The purpose of this constitutional provision is explained as the Corporation, "allow Congressmen know in advance which bills or reports of presidential objections will be put to the vote, assuming the full knowledge of them and avoiding, therefore, they are surprised with intempestivas4,5 votes. "
The Court has held that this provision required for compliance in a preceding -a one in which they discuss and vote- projects to be discussed and voted on at a later session are announced, and that the call should be expressed for a predetermined future date and determined, or at least determinable6.

However, the Court finds that in this case, as stated in the Act 05 regular meeting of September 2, 2003, published in the Gazette number 485 Congress September 22, 2003 p. 4 under item IV of the agenda on reading papers and consideration of projects in second debate where it was noted that "in compliance with the Legislative Act number 01, 2003, then the projects discussed are related and adopted in this session "the bill 108 of 2002 Senate was included, by which approves the" Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ". (You underline added). Session that finally the said project was not voted.
Turn as stated in the Act number 06 corresponding to the regular meeting on September 9, 2003 published in the Gazette number 532 Congress October 10, 2003 (p. 4). (Folio 335 of the file) under item IV of the agenda on reading papers and consideration of projects in second debate, where it was noted that "in compliance with the Legislative Act number 01, 2003, then the projects discussed relate and adopted at this session, "the bill 108 of 2002 Senate was included, through which the approved" Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ". Effectively session that discussed and approved the said bill.
But as is clear from the Act 04 corresponding to the session of August 26, 2003 published in the Gazette No. 484 of September 22, 2003, no prior to inclusion in the agenda of the session from 2 citation and 9 September was made at the regular meeting of August 26, without it being construed as compliance with the requirement specified in Article 160 as amended by Article of Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the inclusion in the agenda of the meetings of September 2, 2003-in which was not discussed nor voted the sub project examine- and September 9 -in which effectively discussed and voted referred project-.
That circumstance is putting this in his concept of Mr. Attorney General's Office to request the declaration of unconstitutionality of the law as a procedural defect -in its irremediable-7 criterion was set, not as complied with the mandate contained in the last paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution as I amended by article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003
regard to the Court is setting clear in the case of a procedural error in as clearly did not comply to the precise mandate contained in the last paragraph of Article 160 as amended by article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003 which states that "no bill will be voted at the meeting other than that which previously it has been announced. Notice that a project will be put to the vote will give the Pres idence of each House or Commission in separate session to one in which the vote will take place. "
The Court notes in fact that the voting of the bill 108 of 2002 Senate, through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic approved of Colombia "was made without a previous session, namely on 26 August or September-2 has been announced for the date September- -9 was made the realization of that vote.
It should be noted that the inclusion of the project referred to in the agenda of the meeting of September 2 Point IV -within the terms to be aludió- back, it does not constitute compliance with the above mandate which has been referred because this is a preliminary and certain knowledge by the Congressmen of the date on which the vote of any given project, a circumstance which in this case is not presentó8 be made.
As it must be concluded that in relation to voting at the plenary Senate Bill 108 Senate 2002, through which the Scientific "Basic Agreement on Technical Cooperation, and approved by the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ae "the procedural violation was set to be referred. 2.1.4
remediable character of procedural defect identified by the Court

Now, facing the defect identified procedure must be remembered that according to settled jurisprudencia9 not any infringement of a rule on the formation of laws contained in the Constitution or the Regulations of Congress, inevitably entails the invalidity of the law, and its declaration of unconstitutionality.
In this regard it is recalled that the constitutional rules on formation of laws that aim to preserve the essential content of the institutional system designed by the Constituent Assembly, as well as ensure that the debate in Congress is comprehensive, transparent and racional10 not they have a value in themselves and should be interpreted purposively in the service of the material values ​​intended to make these rules (articles 1st, 2nd and 228 of the Constitution) 11.
Also, in accordance with paragraph of Article 241 of the Constitution when the Court finds correctable defects in the formation process of the act subject to control order their return to the authority that issued them so that, if possible, amend the failure observed and to remedy the defect, proceed to decide on the exequibiliditd the act.
This regard with specific reference to the principle of instrumentality of the ways the Court explained that:
"The principle of instrumentality of procedural forms sanitation and the possibility of defects in the formation of laws | || 27. The principle of instrumentality of forms has important implications for how we should analyze the relationship between an irregularity in the formation of a law, the eventual disability and possibilities of cleaning up these procedural defects.
So, first, it is clear that not every breach of a rule on the formation of laws contained in the Constitution or in the respective Regulations of Congress, inevitably entails the invalidity of the law and its declaration of unconstitutionality. Indeed, in certain cases, it may be an irregularity irre lift, in so far as it does not violate any principle or constitutional value, and especially fails to affect the process of formation of democratic will in the Chambers, nor know the institutional core content designed by the Charter. In such cases, the irregularity in the strict sense, does not set a real defect in the formation of the law, as stated by the doctrine and national and international jurisprudence. Thus, in comparative law, the Spanish Constitutional Court, in the judgment S-57/89 found that an amendment in the Senate was not motivated, but rejected the challenge against the law, deeming that the defect did not alter substantially the process of forming the will of the Cámar12. And in the case of Colombia, this Court has stated that, although in principle reports paper must be signed by all the speakers, in case of divergence of criteria including the lack of signature of those who departed from the majority position, not really constitutes a procedural defect, because that situation 'does not have sufficient authority to vitiate the legitimacy of the publication of the paper report for the second debate. Indeed, discrepancies between speakers can not reach the point of torpedoing the legislative process through negative behaviors that distort the function legislativa'13.

28. Secondly, in other events it may occur that vice exists, but is validated in the same formation process of law, to the extent that it has fulfilled the purpose that the procedural rules intended to protect, or irregularity has been expressly remedied by an authority that was competent to make that sanitation. For example, in comparative law, doctrine and jurisprudence have considered that a fundamental defect in the voting, can be understood validated if anyway clear that the law had the necessary majority required, for the purpose of voting (determine whether or not a majority) would cumplido14. And in Colombia, the Constitutional Court has stated on numerous occasions that a vice representation during the signing of a treaty is meant remediated, if work in the file the corresponding confirmation presidencial15. Similarly, this Court has understood that the violation of the exclusivity of initiative with the Government in certain matters can be validated in the legislative process, for which sufficient that the ministers put their signature on the text of article for them drafted, as 'although the initiative is the express, clear and unambiguous demonstration of the executive, that the adoption of this or that measure will affect the structure of the national administration considers necessary, has admitted that these requirements are satisfied with the so-called endorsement ministerial'16 .
In this context, if a procedural defect existed but was validated, it is obvious that, depending on the prevalence of substantive law (CP art. 228), it makes no sense that the Court declare unconstitutional the accused disposal.
29. Third, it may be that there is a defect in the formation of the law and this has not been validated, but the Court finds that the defect can be rectified during the review of the constitutionality of the law. In such event, the Charter expressly provides that the constitutional court must rule subject to return control to the authority that issued them so that, if possible, is appropriate to correct it (CP art. 241 par.). In those cases, while this process it is supplied, the law remains in force. And indeed, on several occasions, this Court has returned to Congress and the Government, under control laws for a procedural violation was remedied.
30. Finally, it may happen that there are defects in the formation process of the law, and that these have not been validated in the legislative process, but can be corrected by the same Constitutional Court, in ruling this on the rule in question. For example, when an ordinary law has given him the proper legislative process of an organic law in such cases, the Court has considered that there is indeed a vice, because, as was expressed in the Judgment C-025 / 93, 'the democratic principle requires interpreted restrictively special procedures rigging qualified majorities and, to some extent, petrify the law and prevent the development of a political process delivered the predominance of simple majority, guaranteeing its full freedom and openness'. In these situations, the Court has the possibility to address directly the detected defect, noting that materially is an ordinary law of nature, and declaring its constitutionality under such entendido17.

31. The Court notes that both comparative law, as in the case of Colombia, the severity of the defect has no direct impact on the possibilities of sanitation or validation of the same. The intensity of the irregularity should be taken into account to examine whether or not this constitutes a procedural defect; but once found that the defect exists, gravity is not the most important element in determining whether or not possibility of validation or sanitation, as are other factors that come into play in this evaluation. For example, this Court has stated that if the Constitution sets deadlines determined for a law is passed, as with statutory law or the law of plan18, entnce the constitutional court can not return the bill to Congress for the eventual correction of the defect observed, as the constitutional terms would already expired. Vices that have not been validated in the process itself in Congress then become irreparable, regardless of their severity. Instead, the Court has accepted the recognition by the presidential confirmation of serious defects in the signing of a treaty, as affecting the international representation of the Colombian state. And also, this Court considered that a lack of quorum to decide was a fundamentally flawed, despite its severity, and ordered the return to Congress of a person affected by this defect law, that this was remedied by performing the corresponding discussion . According to the Court, the vice could be cleaned up, 'because it was not feasible to repeat the second debate in the House, given that for projects of common law and, specifically, to those concerning the approval of international treaties, not It requires approval occurs during one legislatura'19.
A serious defect can then become validated or corrected, while minor defects may not have that possibility.
32. However, the Court states that in each of the above assumptions, the possibility of granting the sanitation law should be interpreted reasonably and exercise; In other words, you can not be granted such power such a broad scope, which ends up distorting the notion of invalidating the legislative procedure. To be able to speak of a saneable defect in the formation process of the law, it is necessary that at least has complied with the structural stages of such ent procedu, since the omission of these for example, the pretermisión of discussions before some of those with legislative powers Cameras, makes it impossible to speak of a legislative procedure as such-and therefore preclude consideration of the respective omission as a vicious. Indeed in those events would not itself a procedural flaw in the training of law but an absence or lack of procedure, which can not be remedied. Therefore, it is impossible to classify as 'sanitation' which actually amounts to a repetition of a whole stage of the legislative process because otherwise you end up circumventing the same substantive purposes that the principle of instrunentalidad forms It seeks to preserve.
33. According to the above, the principle of instrumentality of forms, expressly enshrined in Article 228 of the Charter implies that the realization that occurred an irregularity in the proceedings of a law, not inevitably means that the constitutional court must always remove it from system. It is necessary that, previously, the judge will examine (i) if the defect is sufficiently significant to constitute a defect capable of affecting the validity of the law; (Ii) if the irregularity represents a vice, the Court must examine whether there was not a validation of that vice during the process of the law itself; (Iii) if the defect was not validated, the Court must consider whether it is possible to send the law back to Congress and the President to to remedy the defect observed, and (iv) if none of the above hypothesis is not presented, the Court must determine if possible remedy itself, in its ruling, the detected defect, in accordance with the guidelines drawn up, and respecting the principle of reasonableness "20. (You underline added).

In applying these criteria the Court regarding procedural problems in processing laws approving treaties, has in the past returned for correction by the laws of this tipo21 Congress. For example, it may be recalled that during the processing of Law 194 of 1995, approving law of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Government submitted to Congress for consideration an incomplete text of the treaty was intended approved by such law. However, Congress passed and the law, a treaty was referred to the Constitutional Court. The Court considered that the non-approval of those articles of the Convention was due to inadvertence, and considering that it was a fundamentally flawed returned the law to the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency to proceed to correct the above defect by order of 21 March 1996, in which he pointed a term of seven (7) days for the Executive to submit the draft corrected to Congress, and thirty (30) days for discussions surtieran in the Chambers and punished ley22 again.
Also by way of example in the process of Act 178 of 1994, "through which the 'Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property' is approved, made in Paris on March 20, 1883 with respective subsequent revisions, "the Court found that the term of 8 full days must elapse between discussions referred to in Article 160-1 was not respected. The Court considered that it was a fundamentally flawed so the law back to Congress to be approved in its second reading in the House of Representatives in accordance with the Charter Política23.
It should be noted another party under similar criteria, but this time specifically in relation to the configuration of a defect by the incumplimient or the requirement indicated in Article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the Court in Cars 03824 13625 and 2004, -atinentes presidenciales- the processing of objections, said vice remediable character consistent procedure on no citation prior to debate and vote on a project and ordered the return of the respective bills to be correct the vice that had incurrido26.
However, the Court considers that the criteria in the decisions have been referred are applicable in this case, especially when it comes to a passing treaty law which by their nature and characteristics of judicial review to submit them (art. 241-8) 27 is impossible ratification of relevant international instrument until the constitutionality of the law itself and its passing by the Court can not declare.
This possibility is evident also because the vice except that reference has been made, the processing of the project that culminated in the issuance of Law 900 of 2004 was fulfilled entirely in harmony with the Constitution as follows count made in the relevant passages of this decision.
To this should be added that for sanitation vice incurred that it is not necessary to remake the entire legislative process while sanitation that possibility does not imply, contrary to the claims Mr. Attorney General's Office , ignorance of other procedural requirements as set out in Article 162 above.
In this regard it should be noted that the temporary limit referred to in Article 162 above which states that "no bill may be it considered in more than two terms," ​​is only predicable of the action taken by Congress but not of the review automatic entrusted to the Constitutional Court.
So since the procedure that must be filled for the correction of the identified defect is a result of the exercise of review by the Court (Art. 241-10), can not be understood that in these circumstances the requirement is not known that the process is filled at maximum two terms (art. 162 CP), as this is preached to the legislature, which in this case effectively processed and voted the bill within that period as it appears from the analyzed legislative dossier by the slicing, but not of the consequences arising from the exercise of judicial review, which are governed by superiors and legal mandates that allow sanitation of procedural errors (CP paragraph of Article 241, Article 202 of the Law 5 1992 and Article 45 of Decree 2067 of 1991) 28.
No reason for attending Mr. Attorney and from this perspective there is no doubt the nature of the defect identified saneable.

It could be argued, however, that in these circumstances what is involved is setting up a "vice of competition" as in any case would have violated the mandate contained in Article 149 above which states: "Every meeting members of Congress, in order to exercise their own legislative branch of government functions, takes place outside the constitutional conditions is void '; and 'to acts performed may not be given effect, and those involved in the deliberations, be punished according to law. "
Respect, the Court draws attention to the fact that the mandate referred to by that article must be interpreted in 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, which articulated refers to the general conditions of assembly and operation of Congreso29 chapter has a range which must necessarily be differentiated from chapter 3 of Title VI of the Constitution in which articulated specifically establishes the rules of procedure for processing laws.
To this should be added that if the interpretation of the scope of Article 142 to superior reference has been made to be accepted, any procedural defect in the formation of a law of those listed in Chapter 3 of Title VI of the Constitution -even consistently held that the Corporation have been identified as subsanables- competition would set a vice necessarily invalidate the performance of legislators in both become ineffective. Conclusion that clearly unreasonable.
3. The performance to take to vitiate sanitation identified by the Court
As it being clear to the Court that in the present case a procedural defect that being remedied does not involve the declaration of unenforceability of the bill is set to it is examined, because without that the principles and rules of the legislative function are altered and especially the mandates contained in the Constitution on the approval of the bills, and the principle of consecutividad30, you can roll back action to amend failure in the proceedings that have been incurred in the present case, it shall order the processing of the bill remake through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala approved and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001, after the second ballot for debate in the Senate.
In that vein in applying the principle of instrumentality of procesales31 forms, the Court will order through the General Secretariat referral to the Senate on record for a period of thirty (30) days it from its arrival to the presidency of the Senate (art. 45 of Decree 2067 of 1991) 32, the vice incurred is corrected and therefore the vote will remake in the second debate in the Plenary of this Legislature, in compliance with the requirement set out in Article 8 of Legislative Act number 01 of 2003, whose ignorance is what precisely has been identified by the Court.
Also in view of the need to respect the principle of consecutiveness in approving laws shall order that takes the process of approval of the bill again in the House of Representatives. Therefore once cleaned the vice that has been identified by the Court in the terms already noted the Senate shall submit to the House of Representatives on the bill, in order to continue with the proceedings in first and second debate in this Chamber, which should be completed before 16 December 2005.
once approved by the President of the Republic Act, through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation approved between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001, it shall be referred to the Constitutional Court with a view to proceeding to a final decision on its constitutionality.
In light of the foregoing, the S Plena wing of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Colombia, administering justice on behalf of the people and by mandate of the Constitution,
RESOLVED:

First. Declare a procedural defect in the processing of Law 900 of 2004, by which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" was approved , made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001, which is likely to be amended, in accordance with paragraph of Article 241 of the Constitution.
Second. Sort through the General Secretariat referral to the Senate the record of the sub Law examine, so that within thirty (30) days from its arrival to the presidency of the Senate, the vote remake in the second debate in the Plenary of this Legislature the bill, through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" was approved, made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001 in compliance with the requirement in article 8 of Legislative Act number 01
2003. Third. Sort that after completing the previous procedure, the Senate sent to the House of Representatives on the bill, in order to continue with the proceedings at first and second reading in the House, which must be completed before 16 December 2005. Fourth
. Sort that once approved by the President of the Republic the law, through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" was approved, made in Lima, on November 23, 2001, be referred to the Constitutional Court, in order to proceed to a final decision on its constitutionality.
Notice is and enforcement.
Judges,
Illegible signature (with dissenting vote);
ALFREDO BELTRAN SIERRA (with dissenting vote);
JOSÉ MANUEL CEPEDA ESPINOSA; JAIME CORDOBA TRIVIÑO (with dissenting vote);
GIL RODRIGO ESCOBAR; MARCO GERARDO MONROY CABRA; HUMBERTO SIERRA PORTO; ALVARO TAFUR GALVIS; HERNANDEZ VARGAS CLARA INÉS; (With dissenting vote).
The General Secretary, MARTHA V.
Sáchica OF MONCALEANO.
2006
LAW ... (March 3)
through which the "Technical Cooperation Agreement, approved Science and Technology 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001).
THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC
having regard to the text of the "Agreement on Technical Cooperation, Science and Technology between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, day twenty-three (23) November two thousand and one (2001), which reads:
(to be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).
DRAFT LAW NUMBER 108 2002 SENATE
Through which the "Conv enio Basic Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" was approved, made in the city of Lima, on the twenty (23) November two thousand and one (2001).
THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC
having regard to the text of the "Basic Agreement on 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, the day twenty (23) November two thousand and one (2001), which reads:
(to be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).
BASIC AGREEMENT ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION 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;
Desiring to strengthen the traditional ties of friendship existing between the two countries;
Considering that both parties have been carrying out actions of technical and scientific cooperation under the Agreement on Technical Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogota, Colombia on July 13, 1976;
CONSCIOUS of their common interest in promoting and promoting technical and scientific and reciprocal advantages that would result from cooperation in areas of mutual interest progress;
CONVINCED of the importance of updating and strengthening mechanisms that contribute to the development of this process and the need to implement programs of technical and scientific cooperation, that are effective in economic and social progress of their respective countries;

Have agreed as follows: 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 mutual agreement, programs and projects in these areas.
2. In developing these programs and projects, the Parties shall take into account the priorities set out in their respective development plans and support involvement in their implementation, organizations and institutions in the public, private and social sectors as well as universities , institutions of scientific and technical research and non-governmental organizations.
Likewise, the Parties shall take into account the importance in the implementation of national development projects and promote the implementation of joint technological development, linking research centers with industrial entities of the two countries.
3. The Parties may, based on this Agreement, conclude supplementary agreements for technical and scientific cooperation in specific areas of common interest.
ARTICLE II.
1. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Parties shall jointly develop biennial programs in accordance with the priorities of both countries in the field of their respective plans and strategies for economic and social development.
2. Each program must specify objectives, financial and technical resources, work schedules, as well as areas where projects will be executed. They must also specify the operational and financial powers of each of the Parties obligations. 3. Each program will be evaluated at mid-term of the Joint Commission in the framework of a bilateral technical working meeting.
ARTICLE III.
1. In the implementation of the programs will be encouraged and will include, as the Parties deem it necessary, the participation of multilateral and regional technical cooperation agencies and institutions of third countries.
2. The Parties may, whenever they deem necessary and by mutual agreement, seek financing and participation of international organizations and other countries in the implementation of programs and projects to be agreed in accordance with this Convention.
ARTICLE IV.
For the purposes of this Agreement, technical and scientific cooperation between the Parties may take the following forms:
a) Exchange of specialists, researchers and university professors;
B) Internships and training for professional training;
C) joint and coordinated programs Making and / or research projects and / or technological development linking research centers and industry;
D) Exchange of information on scientific and technological research;
E) Development of joint cooperation activities in third countries;
F) Granting scholarships for professional specialization and intermediate studies of technical training;
G) organization of seminars, workshops and conferences;
H) Provision of consulting services;
I) Shipment of equipment and necessary for the implementation of specific projects material and
j) Any other form agreed upon by the Parties.

Article V. In order to have an adequate monitoring mechanism of cooperation actions provided for in this Agreement and establishing the best conditions for its implementation, the Parties shall establish a Guatemalan-Colombian Joint Commission, composed of representatives of both governments, as well as those institutions whose activities directly affect the field of technical and scientific cooperation of both countries.
This Joint Committee will be chaired by the Ministry of Planning and Programming of the Presidency, by Guatemala, and the Colombian Agency for International Cooperation, in conjunction with the Directorate General of International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by of Colombia, and will have the following functions:
a) to evaluate and define priority areas in which specific projects of technical and scientific cooperation would be feasible;
B) To study and recommend programs and projects to be implemented;
C) Review, analyze and approve the biennial programs of technical and scientific cooperation;
D) Supervise the proper observance and implementation of this Agreement and formulate recommendations to the Parties as it deems pertinent.
ARTICLE VI.
1. The Joint Commission shall meet every two years alternately in Guatemala and Colombia, on the dates previously agreed upon through official channels.

2. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, each Party may submit for the consideration of the Other, at any time, specific projects of technical and scientific cooperation for appropriate analysis and, where appropriate, approval. Parties may also convened by mutual agreement and when they deem it necessary, extraordinary meetings of the Joint Commission.
ARTICLE VII.
Both Parties shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the lessons learned by their nationals as a result of the cooperation that Article IV referred to replicate internally to their respective institutions to contribute to economic and social development their countries.
ARTICLE VIII.
In sending personnel to Article IV refers, international transport costs of one of the Parties to the territory of the other, shall be borne by the party ship. The cost of lodging, meals and local transportation will be covered by the receiving Party, unless expressly specified otherwise or is the subject of supplementary agreements Article I, paragraph 3, of this Convention refers.
Article IX.
Agencies and institutions responsible for the execution of supplementary agreements provided for in Article I, paragraph 3, of this Convention national institutions must report to the Joint Committee the results of its work and submit proposals for the further development of cooperation .

Article X. Each Party shall provide the necessary staff out facilities for entry, residence and who are officially involved in the cooperation projects. Such personnel shall be subject to national provisions in force in the receiving country and may not engage in any activity unrelated to their duties, or receive any remuneration, outside established without the prior authorization of the competent authorities.
ARTICLE XI.
Parties all administrative and fiscal facilities necessary for the entry and exit of equipment and materials to be used in carrying out the projects in accordance with its national legislation be awarded.
Article XII.
In connection with the exchange of information and its dissemination, laws and other provisions in force in both States shall be observed as well as the respective international commitments and the rights and obligations agreed in relation to third parties. When information is provided by a Party, that may indicate, when appropriate, restrictions for broadcast.
Article XIII.
The Contracting Parties undertake to:
To grant and experts, technical instructors receive their countries, in implementing this Convention, privileges and special privileges granted to international experts Technical Assistance accordance with regulations force for United Nations experts.
Article XIV.
1. This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the second of the Notes by which the Parties notify each have complied with the requirements of national legislation to this end and will have an initial term of five years, renewable for equal periods, after evaluation.
2. This Agreement may be amended by mutual consent and the agreed amendments shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties, by an exchange of diplomatic notes, meeting the requirements of national legislation to communicate.
3. Any Party may, at any time, terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the other Party through diplomatic channels six months in advance.
4. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the completion of programs and projects which have been formalized during its term.
5. Any dispute that may arise between the parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall be resolved through direct negotiations between them. If these negotiations are successful we the dispute shall be submitted to the other means recognized by international law peaceful solution.
6. Upon entry into force this Convention shall terminate on the Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogotá, Colombia, on July 13, 1976, subject to the cooperation activities scheduled and implementation of supplementary agreements that are running.
Made in Lima, on 23 November two thousand and one, in two original copies in Spanish, both texts being equally authentic.
For the Government of the Republic of Guatemala,

(Illegible signature)
For the Government of the Republic of Colombia,
(Illegible signature)
EXECUTIVE BRANCH PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC BOGOTA, DC, 5
APPROVED March 2002. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.)
Andres Pastrana Minister of Foreign Affairs,
(Sgd.) Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Basic Agreement on 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001) . Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Basic Agreement on 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, the day twenty-three (23) November two thousand and one (2001), that article 1 of this law passed, will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
Given in Bogotá, DC, ...
honorable Presented to Congress signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Maria Carolina Barco Isakson
. STATEMENT OF MOTIVES

Honorable Senators and Representatives:
On behalf of the Government and in compliance with Articles 150, paragraph 16 and 189, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Colombia, presented for consideration by the honorable Congress Republic the bill through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" was approved, made in the city of Lima, the twenty-third ( 23) November two thousand and one (2001).
At the Working Meeting Cooperation Programme 2000-2002 Colombia-Guatemala, held in Bogota on May 15, 2000, Guatemala, considered it necessary to sign a new Basic Agreement of Cooperation between the two countries, to modify paragraph 3 Article II of the Agreement signed in 1976, and introduce the creation of the Joint Commission and the mechanism for follow-up meetings previously established projects. Also, new forms of cooperation were incorporated through the dispatch of experts and dispute resolution clause, which was not previously provided.
Indeed, this Convention constitutes a framework of singular importance to promoting cooperation that has been developed with Guatemala in the areas 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 has been signed, Colombia, with the aim to establish new and appropriate basis for cooperation, especially with countries in Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean in policy development constitutional and within the framework of regional integration.
The provisions of this Agreement, establish reciprocal commitments and conditions for cooperation on the basis of performance and balanced consideration, by which the parties seek a fruitful exchange of technical and science for the mutual benefit of Colombia and Guatemala.
This agreement maintains the spirit of technical cooperation among developing countries (TCDC), drawn up by the United Nations in the Plan of Action of Buenos Aires, 1978, as an important instrument of solidarity and growth among neighboring countries.
Both the preamble and the first article common expressions of good will of the parties are committed, to encourage and stimulate cooperative action, which since July 13, 1976 were being made between the two countries.
In the second article, the preparation of the biennial programs in accordance with the priorities of both countries agreed, and each program must specify objectives, financial and technical resources, work schedules and areas to be executed projects. Each program will be evaluated at mid-term of the Joint Commission.
In the third article, it was agreed that when the Parties consider it necessary to be participation of multilateral and regional technical cooperation agencies and institutions of third countries and, if deemed necessary, may apply for funding and participation of agencies international and other countries.

In the fourth article, it was agreed to develop various forms of cooperation such as exchange of scientists, experts and university professors, technical training for improving skills and specializations through scholarships, courses, seminars and exchange information and supply of equipment and materials necessary for the implementation of programs and projects.
In the fifth article, Guatemalan-Colombian Mixed Commission which shall consist of representatives of both Governments and representatives of institutions whose activities directly affect the field of scientific and technical cooperation is established.
The Joint Committee shall evaluate and identify priority areas for specific projects of technical and scientific cooperation and study projects to be executed. In addition, you should review, analyze and approve the biennial program of technical and scientific cooperation and monitor the proper observance of the Convention.
Article sixth, it was agreed that the Joint Commission shall meet every two years alternately in Guatemala and Colombia, on dates agreed officially, leaving the possibility of conducting special meetings of the Joint tarian, for consideration of Parties specific projects.
With a view to the experiences of our national, as a result of cooperation replicate internally in the various institutions that contribute to economic and social development of countries, it was agreed, in Article seventh, each one of the States shall take measures to fulfill this purpose.
In the eighth article, both Parties agree that the international transport costs of one of the Parties to the territory of the other, be covered by the party to send it. The cost of lodging, meals and local transportation will be covered by the receiving Party, unless otherwise specified or is the subject of complementary agreements.
Article ninth, the Parties agree that national agencies and institutions responsible for the implementation of the supplementary agreements that are provided for in Article 3 of the Convention numeral first national institutions must report to the Joint Commission the results of their work and submit proposals for further development of cooperation.
In the tenth article, it is agreed that each Party shall provide the necessary staff out facilities for entry, residence and who are officially involved in the cooperation projects. Such personnel shall be subject to national provisions in force in the receiving country and may not engage in any activity unrelated to their duties, or receive any remuneration, outside the established without prior authorization of the competent authorities.
In the eleventh article, the Parties undertake to provide all administrative and fiscal facilities necessary for the entry and exit of equipment and materials to be used in carrying out the projects in accordance with their national legislation.
In the twelfth article, the two countries agree that the exchange of information and its dissemination shall be in accordance with current standards.
Article thirteenth, the Parties undertake to grant to experts, instructors and technicians received their countries prerogatives and special privileges granted to international experts of technical assistance, in accordance with current regulations for experts United Nations.
In the fourteenth article states that the Convention enters into force from the date of receipt of the second of the Notes by which the Parties notify each have complied with the requirements of national legislation, and that this you will have an initial term of five years, renewable for equal periods.
The Convention may be modif ied by mutual consent and, where appropriate, either party may terminate it by written notification through diplomatic channels six months in advance, without affecting the conclusion of the programs and formalized during its term projects.
Any dispute between the Parties shall be resolved through direct negotiations and if these are not successful, the dispute shall be submitted to the media recognized by international law peaceful solution.
It should be stressed that this agreement reflects the desire of both countries to promote and foster economic and social development of their peoples for the benefit of both sides, contemplating the necessary mechanisms to attune existing cooperation with the global reality.

Given the above, the Government, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, submitted for consideration of the honorable Congress the "Basic Agreement on 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001).
Of the honorable Congressmen,
The Minister of Foreign Affairs Maria Carolina Barco Isakson
.

LAW 424 1998 (January 13)
why internacionalessuscritos monitoring the agreements by Colombia is ordered.

THE CONGRESS OF COLOMBIA DECREES: Article 1.
. The National Government through the Foreign Ministry presented annually to the Second Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate and House, and within the first thirty calendar days after the legislative session that begins each July 20, a detailed report on how they are fulfilling and developing the existing international agreements signed by Colombia with other States. Article 2.
. Each branch of the National Government responsible for implementing international treaties within their competence and require reciprocity in them, will communicate the relevant information to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and east to the Second Committees.
Article 3o. The full text of this law shall be annexed to each and every one of the international conventions that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs present to Congress.
Article 4o. This law governs from its promulgation.
The President of the honorable Senate,
Amylkar ACOSTA MEDINA.
The Secretary General of the honorable Senate,
PUMAREJO PEDRO VEGA.
The President of the honorable Chamber of Representatives,
CARLOS ARDILA BALLESTEROS.
The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives, DIEGO VIVAS
TAFUR.
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA - NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
published and execute.
Given in Santa Fe de Bogota, DC, 13 January 1998.

Ernesto Samper Pizano Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maria Emma Mejia
VÉLEZ. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, on March 5, 2002. Approved
. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.)
Andres Pastrana Minister of Foreign Affairs,
(Sgd.) Guillermo Fernandez de Soto. DECREES
:
ARTICLE 1o. Approval of the "Basic Agreement on 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 (23) November two thousand and one (2001) . Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Basic Agreement on 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, the day twenty-three (23) November two thousand and one (2001), that article 1 of this law passed, will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
ARTICLE 3. This law applies from the date of publication.
The President of the honorable Senate,
CLAUDIA BLUM Barberi.
The Secretary General of the honorable Senate,
EMILIO RAMÓN OTERO DAJUD.
The President of the honorable House of Representatives
GALLARDO JULIO E. ARCHBOLD.
The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives, ANGELINO
LIZCANO RIVERA.
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
published and complied.
Given in Bogotá, DC, on March 3, 2006.

The Alvaro Uribe Deputy Foreign Minister in charge of the functions of the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Camilo Reyes Rodriguez
. Run
prior review by the Constitutional Court, in accordance with Article 241-10 of the Constitution and Auto A-088 2005 (File LAT-273).
1 page 20 of the record.
2 Folio 39 record.

3 Under Judgment C-468 of 1997, such control is characterized by (i) prior to the improvement of the treaty, but after approval of Congress and government sanction; (Ii) automatic, it must be sent directly per the President of the Republic to the Constitutional Court within the government sanction six days; (Iii) integral to the extent that the Court must analyze both the formal aspects and materials law and treaty, confronting them with all the constitutional text; (Iv) has force of res judicata; (V) it is a sine qua non for ratification of the relevant agreement; and (vi) a preventive function, because its purpose is to guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution as the fulfillment of the commitments internacionalesdel Colombian State.
As to control procedural defects that the Court exercises over international treaties and laws that passed, as prescribed in Article 241, paragraph 10 superior, this is addressed both to examine the validity of the representation of the State Colombian in the process of negotiation and conclusion of the instrument and competence of officials in the negotiation and signing of the treaty, as compliance with the rules on the formation of the approval in Congress law. See in the same sense, among many others, Case C-400/98 MP Alejandro Martinez Caballero; C-834/01 MP Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra; C-363/00 and C718 / 04 MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis; and C-333/05 MP Jaime Córdoba Triviño
4 See, among other Judgments C-333/05 MP Jaime Córdoba Triviñoy C-533 Alvaro Tafur Galvis MP 2004 SV Jaime Araújo Rentería; and Auto 038 2004 MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa.
5 Constitutional Court, Judgment C-644 of 2004, MP Rodrigo Escobar Gil, SV Uprimny
Rodrigo Yepes. 6
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-644 of 2004, MP Rodrigo Escobar Gil, SV Uprimny
Rodrigo Yepes.
7 The LORD Attorney General's Office warns in effect in accordance with constitutional jurisprudence is only possible remedy procedural problems: i) on the basis of a procedure has actually been carried out; ii) in those cases in which for correction is not necessary to remake the legislative process in its entirety, and iii) when the opportunity for correction has not yet expired so that can not be remedied defects involving the ignorance of other requirements procedure as laid down in Article 162 above.
It states that in the case of the draft law approving the Convention under consideration is clear that it is "... a process that actually took place, because it is a law passed and enacted, and therefore it not is necessary to advance the process in its entirety, since Article 8 of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 only allowed to apply for the Senate in second debate. In this vein, the Court may order the return of the law Congress to remedy a defect observed in accordance with Article 241 superior ... (...) ".
However, he notes that examine the bill 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 already they passed two terms, between the project submission and approval. In these terms, it concludes that "... the terms .jados by the Constitution for the approval of Law 900 of 2004 are up, which prevents the Court to order its return to the Senate to correct the defect warned (...) by performing the corresponding discussion, notice that the project would be put to a vote in separate session, as this would violate Article 162 is constitutional ... "so that not being possible to remedy the procedural defect in which incurred in approving Act 900 of 2004 should be declared unconstitutional this.
8 Needless to specify that the especí.cas circumstances referred to the Court in the C553 / 04 and C-661 of 2004 sentences, are not satisfied in the present case because the same was an announcement effectively well for plenary session following (Judgment C-553/04 MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis. SV Jaime Araújo Rentería) either the previous and some knowledge of Congressmen on the conduct of voting (Judgment C-661 of 2004 MP Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra. SV Jaime Araújo Rentería).
9 See, among other judgments C-737/01 MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett .; C-872/02 MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett AV Judges Sierrra Alfredo Beltran and Jaime Araújo Rentería. Also the Order of September 24, 2003 MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis.

10 In this regard, see Case C-737 MP Eduardo Montealegre 2001 Lynett.
11 View Judgment C-872/02 MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett AV (Magistrates Alfredo Beltran and Jaime Araújo Rentería Sierrra.
Paloma Biglino 12 Check Campos. The vices in the legislative procedure. Madrid, Centro de Estudios constitutional, 1991, pp. 36 et seq.
13 Judgment C-055 MP 1995. Alejandro Martinez Caballero, Rationale 8.
14 See Decision No. 225 of 23 January 1987 the French constitutional Council. a more generally, see Paloma Biglino Campos. op. cit., pp. 134 et seq.
15 see, among many others, Case C-225 and C-400 1995 1998. 16 Judgment C
1996 -032 MP Jose Gregorio Hernandez Galindo. in the same vein, see judgments C-266 and C-1995 1707 2000
17 the majority position of the Court is that this Court can only make a sanitation this nature when it comes to ordinary laws which has been the processing of organic laws, since the decision of the Court can only have the effect of downgrading of a particular law; ie that could not be attributed to the defendant Corporation a hierarchy or greater normal force binding the Congress wanted him attributed, as this will be limiting the democratic principle. However, the judges Eduardo Montealegre and Manuel José Cepeda considered, in elucidating vote to Judgment C-579 of 2001, which the Court could also make a pronouncement of the second type, ie declare a nominally ordinary law, is actually an organic law for having complied with the substantive requirements required by the Charter -a namely that the subject matter of the regulation is part of the reserve of organic law, and have been submitted the correspondientes- majorities, and lacking only the requirement to there existed an express legislative will, in the sense of being an organic law (cf. Judgment C-540/01). In the opinion of those judges, the Corporation is authorized to give greater status to a law (for example, despite having been dealt with as ordinary, reclassify it as organic) and rectifying the said defect, as long as it meets the following requirements:
a) that the system of constitutional control, the structure imposes limits on the performance of the Corporation not desvertebre. For example, there are certain laws such as statutory laws, or international- approving of treaties, which are subject to control constitutionality prior to shipment; in that sense, could not the Court, to validate a vice of the type indicated, be reclassified as statutory laws, laws that were processed as ordinary or as organic as this would contravene the scheme very functioning of the constitutional court;
B) That the declaration by which it is intended to remedy the defect, the Court does not harm the democratic will of Congress; well, you can not declare a law is organic, no-show, at least the majority vote required by the Charter, and
c) That it is imperative vices that do not return the bill to Congress, so that there was a stage that it takes omitted.
18 See, among others, Case C-555
2000. 19 Judgment C-203 MP 1995. Jose Gregorio Hernandez Galindo. C. Consideration
20 Judgment C-737/01 MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett. In the same sense see the Judgment C-872/02 Lynett AV MP Eduardo Montealegre of the judges; Alfredo Beltran and Jaime Araújo Rentería Sierrra. Also the Order of September 24, 2003, MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis.
21 See, among others Autos Jorge Arango Mejía MP 05/95 and 06/95 MP Jose Gregorio Hernandez Galindo and Judgement C-008/95 and C-203/95 MP José Gregorio Hernández Galindo.
22 See Judgment C-255 of 1996, MP Alejandro Martinez Caballero.
23 See Judgment C-002 of 1996, MP José Gregorio Hernández Galindo.
24 In Auto 038 2004, MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, the project had been processed in full before it entered into force on Legislative Act 01 of 2003, but the vote on the report of the Plenary of the Senate objections it failed to meet the requirement of Article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003, reason why the project was returned for Congress to remedy this defect.

25 In Auto 136 2004, MP Jaime Araújo Rentería, objected to the draft law was discussed and approved before the entry into force of Legislative Act 01 of 2003, but the requirement of Article 8 of the act, not he fulfilled in relation to the insistence of the plenary of the House and Senate, reason why the project was returned to Congress for procedural remedied the defect.
26 In Auto 038 2004, the requirement of Article 8 was not met during the processing of
objections. The Court said the following in that order in relation to the process of the presidential objections:
In this case the defect is remedied because the structural stages of the legislative procedure respected and was omitted only meet the new requirement announced in previous session to be convened to vote at a future date pre.jada. Therefore, and in accordance with the provisions of paragraph of Article 241 of the Charter, the bill number 48 of 2001 Senate 212 2002 House of Representatives shall return to this chamber to comply with the provisions of Article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003
in Auto 136 of 2004, the four debates for the approval of the bill were completed before the term of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, but the presidential objections to the project were not executed in accordance with the requirements of Article 8 of this legislative act. The Court said:
"Thus it is found by this Court, that the 1st mandated by constitutional provision referred, was not met
regarding the emphases made by the House of Representatives and the Senate (art. 167 Constitution). In other words, requiring the insistence of the plenary of the House and Senate for a special vote, it failed to meet the requirement of being previously announced, the above mentioned constitutional article being in force. ...

So, in this specific case and based on the clarifications already noted, the Court considers that the defect can be remedied warned.
Therefore, since both Houses have committed the designated vice, both should clean it up. Since that whoever sent the bill to the Constitutional Court was the President of the Senate, this will be returned to him. "
27 Article 241. The Constitutional Court is entrusted with safeguarding the integrity and supremacy of the Constitution
in strict and precise terms of this article. To this end, it shall perform the following functions
: (...)
10. De.nitivamente decide on the constitutionality of international treaties and the laws approving them. To this end, the government will submit to the Court, within six days the sanction of the law. Any citizen may intervene to defend or challenge their constitutionality. If the Constitutional Court declares the Government may make the exchange of letters; otherwise it will not be ratified. When one or more provisions of a multilateral treaty are declared invalid by the Constitutional Court, the President of the Republic can only express the consent formulating the corresponding reservation.
28 See Order of September 24, 2003 MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis.
29 Title VI LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
(...)

CHAPTER 2 OF THE MEETING AND OPERATION
Article 138. The Congress, in its own right, will meet in regular session for two periods per year, forming a single legislature. The first session will begin on July 20 and end on December 16; the second on March 16 and will end on June 20.
If for any reason he is unable to meet on the dates indicated, it will do so as soon as possible, within the respective periods.
Congress will also meet in extraordinary sessions convened by the Government and during the time
this point.
In the course of them may only engage in the issues that the government submitted to it, without prejudice to the role of political control of its own, which may be exercised at all times.
Article 139. The Congress sessions will be installed and joint closed and publicly
the President of the Republic, without this ceremony, in the first event, is essential for the Congress
legitimately exercising his functions .
Article 140. The Congress is headquartered in the capital of the Republic.
The Chambers may by agreement between them to move their headquarters to another place and, if peturbación public order, may meet at the site designated by the President of the Senate.

Article 141. The Congress shall assemble in one body only for installation and closure of its session, to give possession to the President of the Republic, to receive Heads of State or Government of other countries to choose Comptroller General Vice President of the Republic and when necessary replace the elected (sic) by the people, and decide (sic) on the motion of censure under Article 135.
in such cases the President of the Senate and the camera will be respectively President and Vice President of the Congress.
Article 142. Each Chamber shall elect, for the respective constitutional period, permanent committees that dealt in the first debate draft legislative act or law.
The law shall determine the number of Standing Committees and their members as well as the materials of which each must deal.
When in session jointly Permanent Constitutional Commissions, the decision
quorum shall be that required for each of the committees considered individually.
Article 143. The Senate and House of Representatives may provide that any of the standing committees in session during the recess, with the .n to discuss the issues that have been outstanding during the previous period, to conduct studies determine the respective corporation and preparing projects to the Chambers entrust them.
Article 144. The sessions of the Chambers and their standing committees shall be public, with the limitations that may apply in accordance with its rules.
Article 145. The full Congress, the House and its committees may not open sessions or deliberate
less than a quarter of its members. Decisions can only be taken with the support of most members of the respective corporation, unless the Constitution determines a different quorum.
Article 146. In the full Congress, in the Chambers and their standing committees, decisions are taken by majority vote of those present, unless the Constitution expressly requires a special majority.
Article 147. The Executive Boards of the Chambers and their standing committees be renewed each year for the term beginning on July 20, and no member may be reappointed within the same constitutional four years.
Article 148. The rules on quorum and majority decision-making also apply to other public corporations of popular election.
Article 149. Any meeting of members of Congress that in order to exercise proper to the legislative branch of government functions, takes place outside the constitutional conditions, is void; acts performed may not be given any effect, and those involved in the deliberations, be punished according to law.
30 The principle of consecutiveness see, among others, Case C-702/99 MP Fabio Moron Diaz, C-087/01 MP Cristina Pardo Schlesinger, C-501/01 MP Jaime Córdoba Triviño, C-044 / 02 MP Rodrigo Escobar Gil, C-198/02 MP Clara Inés Vargas Hernandez and C-1113-1103 MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis.
31 See Judgment C-737/01 MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett. In the same vein see the Judgment C-872/02 MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett. AV Judges Sierrra Alfredo Beltran and Jaime Araújo Rentería. Also the Order of September 24, 2003 MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis.
32 Article 45. When the Court finds correctable defects in the formation process of the act subject to its control, order their return to the authority that issued them so that within the term established by the Court, if possible, amend the defect observed. Remedy the defect or expiration of the term, the Court will decide on the constitutionality of the act. This term may not exceed thirty days from the time the authority is able to correct it.

Related Laws