Yes Madam President.

(...)

The Presidency tells the Secretariat to read the proposal with which the report ends.

By the Secretariat is read to the positive proposition with which the report ends.

The Presidency submits to the plenary the proposal read and, closed its discussion, it gives its approval. Second debate opens.

At the request of the honorable Senator Carlos Moreno de Caro, the Presidency submits to the plenary's consideration omitting the, reading of the article and, closed its discussion, it gives its approval.

The Presidency submits to the plenary the article of the bill, and closed its discussion question: Does the proposed article adopt the plenary? And it responds in the affirmative.

The Presidency tells the Secretariat to read the project title.

By Secretariat is read to the title of Bill 73 of 2005 Senate, by means of which the amendment to Article I of the Convention on Bans or Restrictions on the Employment of Certain Weapons is approved Conventional ones that can be considered excessively harmful or of indiscriminate effects, adopted at the Second Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention, twenty-one (21) December of two thousand one (2001), in Geneva, Switzerland.

Read this, the Presidency submits it to the plenary, and closed its discussion question: Do the members of the Corporation approve the title read? And they give you their approval.

Meeting the constitutional, legal and regulatory procedures, the Presidency asks: Do the senators present that the bill passed is the law of the Republic? And these respond in the affirmative.

The Presidency tells the Secretariat to continue with the next project " [4];

b) Processing in the House of Representatives

Bill 73 of 2005 Senate, approvatory of " The Amendment to Article 1 of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Employment of Certain Conventional Weapons that may be considered as excessively harmful or of effects ", was established in the House of Representatives with the number 264/06 Camara.

The presentation for the third debate of Bill No. 264 of 2006 was presented to the Second House Committee by Representative Carlos Ramiro Chavarro Cuellar and published in the Gazette of the Congress number 126 of May 18, 2006 (pages 6-8, to folios 97-98 of Test Notebook 2).

In compliance with Article 8o of Legislative Act 01, 2003, the vote of the 2006 Bill No. 264 by the Second House Committee of the House of Representatives was announced at the session on May 17, 2006. This announcement took place in a joint session of the Senate and House Committees, in response to the urgent message presented by the National Government to expedite the approval of Bill No. 254 of 2006 Senate, 271 of 2006. "by means of which the acquisition of goods and services for National Defense and Security is regulated"[5].

Approved by the two legislative chambers at the same meeting on 17 May 2006, the committees proceeded to carry out the announcements and calls, including, as already noted, for the case of the Second Commission of the Chamber, the announcement for the vote of Bill No. 264 of 2006. It should be noted, however, that the announcement did not include the indication of the session in which the vote on the said draft was to be held, nor is it possible to deduct such a fact from the context of the sitting. This is stated in Act No. 01 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette number 333 of September 1, 2006. (p. 12 of the Gazette, to folio 14 of the Test Notebook 5), in which it was stated that, when the word was given to the General Secretariat of the Second Commission of the House, the latter was limited to pointing out "I announce bills", expression that does not allow you to specify with a certain level of clarity a certain or determinable date to carry out the discussion and approval of the project. It should be made clear that the context of the sitting is also not possible to deduce such a fact, since the reference to the subject of the projects to be dealt with is limited only to the manifestation made by the General Secretariat of the Second Commission of the Camera, to which it was already made express reference. The following is the context and text of the announcement:

" The Second House Committee runs out of the Order of the Day and convenes for Wednesday ... the following Tuesday after elections.

The Secretary General of the Second Senate Committee, Dr. Felipe Ortiz Marulanda, has been speaking:

The Second Senate Committee then announces for the Wednesday, May 31 Session outside of the projects already announced in Bill No. 171 of 2005, Bill No. 121 of 2005, Bill No. 126 2005, the 195 of 2005, the 198 of 2005, and 219 of 2005 that were placed in the Order of the Day for discussion of today, remain for Wednesday, May 31.

The General Secretariat of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Dr. Rocio López Robayo, has been used to speak:

Mr. President to inform you that there is a ...

The President of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has been speaking for the floor:

Secretary, announced Senate projects, announced House projects and there is a proposition.

The General Secretariat of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Dr. Rocio López Robayo, has been used to speak:

Mr. President, yes,

Proposition.

" ... Proposal presented by the honourable Representative Guillermo Abel Rivera Florez, under the recent events in the area of trade and diplomatic relations and specifically those of rapprochement, possibilities and/or negotiations I would like to ask the honourable Member of the House to make an urgent request to the honourable Member of the House to make an urgent request for a debate on control of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The president of the Foreign Ministry, Dr. Carolina Barco, to clarify what happens to the regarding ... ".

The President of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has been used to speak:

Their discussion opens, the proposal read by Rep. Guillermo Rivera, a notice that will be closed. Does the Second Commission approve the proposal read?

Approved.

The General Secretariat of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Dr. Rocio López Robayo, has been used to speak

I announce bills. (Refers and underscores out of text).

-- 239 of 2005 Camara, 072 of 2005 Senate, by means of which the " Economic Complementation Agreement number 33 Free Trade Agreement concluded between the Republic of Colombia, the United Mexican States and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Sixth Additional Protocol " signed in the City of Montevideo.

-- Bill No. 277 of 2006 Chamber, 066 of 2005 Senate, by means of which is declared as the cultural and sports patrimony of the Nation the Modern Stadium Julio Torres cradle of Colombian District football Branquilla special.

-- Bill No. 178 of 2005 House, 249 of 2005 Senate, by means of which the "Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purposes of detection" is approved.

-- House No. 261 Bill, 068 Senate, by means of which honors the country's private and public service vehicle drivers and declares National Driver's Day.

-- Bill No. 238 of 2005 House, 256 of the Senate, by means of which crimes of non-compliance with the administrative decision, expulsion and illegal reinstatement to the country of foreigners are typified for the purpose of protect the security of the State.

-- House Bill No. 264, 073 of 2005 Senate, by means of which the amendment of Article 1 of the Convention on provisions is approved, on discussions of the employment of certain conventional weapons that they can be considered to be excessively harmful or of indiscriminate effects, approved in Geneva in 2001. (Refers and underscores out of text).

-- Bill 236 of 2005 House, 090 of 2004 Senate, by means of which the Convention on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial documents in civil or commercial matters, made in The Hague on November 15, 1965. (Negrillas and underscores out of text).

The Secretary General of the Second Senate Committee, Dr. Felipe Ortiz Marulanda, has been speaking:

The Second Senate Committee also announces Bill 108 of 2005.

The President of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has been used to speak:

[passage] SoJoint Session of the Congress of the Republic's Second Commission for the Second Chamber is being concluded, and the Congressmen of this Commission are called or are summoned to the next Tuesday, 30 May, of the present year.

use of the word the honorable Senator Habib Merheg Marun:

I consider the title read, warning that will be closed. It is closed. Does the Second Commission approve this? The Secretary General, Dr. Rocio Esperanza López Robayo, has used the word:

You have been approved Mr. President.

The President, Honourable Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has used the floor:

Does the Commission want this bill to go into the second debate? The Secretary General, Dr. Rocio Esperanza López Robayo, has used the word:

So you want Mr. President.

President, Honourable Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has been used to speak:

The same speaker is designated for the Chamber Plenary "[7].

The presentation for the fourth floor debate in the House of Representatives was presented by Representative Carlos Ramiro Chavarro Cuellar and published in the Congress Gazette number 175 of June 8, 2006 (pp. 27-28, to folios 42-43 of Test Notebook 1).

In compliance with Article 8o of Legislative Act 01, 2003, the vote on the bill in the House Plenary was announced on June 7, 2006, to be held in the following session, as stated in the Minutes No. 234 of the House of Representatives. date, published in the Congress Gazette number 220 of June 27, 2006 (Pag. 23, to folio 132 of Test Notebook 1). The text of the announcement follows:

"Address of the session by the Presidency, Dr. Julio Gallardo:

Secretary, please announce the projects and the issues we will be dealing with in the Plenary session next Tuesday (text).

" The Assistant Secretary General, Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo, reports

Seven. Bill No. 264 of 2006 House, 073 of 2005 Senate, by means of which the amendment to Article 1 of the convention on prohibitions or restrictions of the use of certain conventional weapons that can be considered is approved excessively harmful, of indiscriminate effects adopted by the Second Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention, on 21 December 2001, in Geneva, Switzerland.

The report is as follows: Dise second debate to the bill by means of which the amendment to Article 1 of the Convention on prohibitions or restrictions of employment is approved. certain conventional weapons which may be considered to be excessively harmful or of indiscriminate effects, adopted at the Second Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention, on 21 December 2001, in Geneva, Switzerland.

According to the text presented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and approved in Plenary of the Senate, Carlos Ramiro Chavarro signed. Submit the paper, Mr. President.

of the session by the President, Dr. Julio E. Gallardo Archbold:

The Assistant Secretary General, Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo, reports

Approved.

of the session by the President, Dr. Julio E. Gallardo Archbold:

The Assistant Secretary General, Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo, reports

It consists of three items, no propositions.

of the session by the President, Dr. Julio E. Gallardo Archbold:

The Assistant Secretary General, Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo, reports

Approved.

of the session by the President, Dr. Julio E. Gallardo Archbold:

The Assistant Secretary General, Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo, reports

By means of which the amendment of Article 1 of the Convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons that can be considered as excessively harmful or of indiscriminate effects is approved adopted by the Second Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention, on 21 December 2001, in Geneva, Switzerland.

The title has been read.

of the session by the President, Dr. Julio E. Gallardo Archbold:

The Assistant Secretary General, Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo, reports

Approved.

of the session by the President, Dr. Julio E. Gallardo Archbold:

The Assistant Secretary General, Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo, reports

So you want, Mr. President "[9].

Finally, on July 31, 2006, the President of the Republic sanctioned Law 1072, "By means of which the Amendment to Article 1 of the Convention on Bans is approved." Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be considered as excessively harmful or of indiscriminate effects ' adopted at the second examination conference of the States Parties to the Convention, 21 December of two mil uno (2001), in Geneva, Switzerland ".

Made the previous legislative recount, the Court proceeds to determine the constitutionality of the procedure that was printed in the Congress of the Republic to Law 1072 of 2006.

3. Constitutionality analysis of the procedure given by Congress to Law 1072 of July 31, 2006

According to the previous count, the Court finds that Bill 73 of 2005 Senate, 264 of 2006 Chamber, which concluded with the issuance of Law 1072 of 2006, initiated its procedure in the Senate of the Republic, as it has Article 241-10 of the Charter. In addition, under the terms of the article 157 Superior, the aforementioned bill was published in the Congress before it was given a course in the respective committee (C.P., article 157-1), was approved in the first debate in the corresponding Senate and Chamber (C) Seconds. P., article 157-2), was approved in the second debate in the Plenaries of each Chamber (C. P., article 157-3) and received due presidential sanction (C. P., article 157-4).

Also, between the first and second debates in each of the Chambers was a lapse of not less than eight days, as ordered by the article 160 Superior. In fact, while the approval in the first debate in the Second Committee of the Senate took place on November 30, 2004, the presentation for the second debate in the Plenary was presented on December 15 of the same year. In addition, the approval in the first debate in the Second Committee of the House was held on May 30, 2006, while the presentation for the second debate in the House Plenary was presented on June 13, 2006.

Moreover, between the approval of the bill in the Senate, 15 December 2005, and the initiation of the debate in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, 30 May 2006, a time of no less than 15 days passed, as is ordered by article 160 of the Political Constitution.

It is added to the above, that the sessions in the commissions and plenary sessions of both Houses were carried out by observing the required quorum , and that the bill was approved by a majority of the congressmen in attendance, such as consists of the Acts referred to in the previous act and as ratified by the certificates issued by the respective secretaries-general of the commissions and plenary annexes to the file.

Verified the observance of the above formalities, the Court must enter to determine whether the Congress of the Republic has complied with the requirement laid down in paragraph 5 of article 160 of the Political Charter, added by Article 8 of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, which requires as a budget for the approval of the bills the prior announcement of the vote in each of the parliamentary debates.

3.1. The announcement requirement provided for in Article 160 of the Political Constitution

Paragraph 5 of Article 160 of the Political Charter, as it was added by Article 8 of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, expressly states that:

" No bill will be put to a vote in session other than that previously announced. The notice that a project will be put to the vote will be given by the Presidency of each Chamber or committee in session other than that in which the vote will be held. "

On that rule, the Court has specified that a new procedural requirement, through which Congress is required to announce new procedural requirement, has been incorporated into the approval of the laws. previously, in each regulatory debate, the bills that will be put to the vote in the respective Legislative Chambers. This Corporation justified the requirement of the above requirement, pointing out that it serves a dual purpose[10].

On the one hand, allow the congressmen to know with due anticipation the projects and other matters submitted to them, preventing them from being surprised with unannounced and unanticipated votes. And on the other hand, guarantee citizens and social organizations that they have an interest in the projects dealt with by the Congress, a timely political participation, so that they can have an impact on their approval process in time, giving to know their opinions and ideas and to express their agreement or disagreement with the debate.

Following the literal tenor of paragraph 5 or Article 160 Superior, the Court has held that the announcement requirement brings together the following factual assumptions[11], which must be observed by the Congress and subsequently verified by the constitutional control body:

i) That the project vote be announced in each of the regulatory debates;

(ii) that the announcement is made by the Presidency of the Chamber or the respective Commission in a different session prior to the one in which the vote on the project is to take place;

iii) That the date of the vote be certain, determined or, failing, determinable, and

iv) That the project is not voted in session other than previously announced.

Through the various pronouncements on the subject, this Court has been defining the criteria that must guide the work of the constitutional judge when assessing the observance of such budgets. In Case C-933 of 2006 (M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil), the Court summarized the above criteria as follows:

" 1. The announcement does not have to be made through a certain sacramental formula or a certain linguistic expression[12]. Considering that the Constitution does not provide for the use of a specific locution to make the announcement that it treats the article 160 Superior, the Court has estimated that if the purpose of the same is to prevent the members of the Chambers and the citizenry from being able to deal with the issues that are dealt with and decided by the Congress, in order to accommodate the principle that the prevalence of the substantial right to the formal law (C. P., article 228), what is relevant is that the expression that is used unequivocally leads to the observance of the mentioned constitutional requirement. In this regard, he specified that ' the fact that there is no specific expression designed to comply with the requirement of constitutional article 160 does not mean that any verbal expression linked to this subject is the demand for the notice imposed by the Charter '[13], since in any case,' it is a requirement that these synonym expressions transmit the idea entered in the article 160' " [14].

Within the subject of the use of certain vocablos, the Court has pointed out[15] that if in the course of the sessions the expression is used the expression "announced" to refer to the projects that will be debated and voted in another session, in principle the same can be interpreted as circumscribing to the intention of the Congress to fulfill the requirement foreseen in the article 160 Superior. In the opinion of the Corporation it should be understood thus, because within the process of formation of the law, the advance notice is required by the Political Constitution only for the purposes of announcing the vote and, therefore, for no other procedure legislative.

2. It is also possible to consider compliance with the requirement provided for in Article 160 Superior, when the context of the debates raises elements of judgment that make it possible to deduce that the intention of the It has been to announce the vote on certain projects for a later session. With respect to such budget the Court has made the following clarifications[16]:

i) Recurring to the context of the debate as an element of identification of the ad is preached not only of the ad itself, but also of the date of the vote and of the intention to put a certain project to the vote;

ii) The possibility of verifying the constitutional requirement of the announcement from the context of the debates acquires validity in relation to each specific case, since the dynamics of the legislative activity rule out the application of a criterion (iii) The assessment of the context is not in respect of a single sitting, in particular of the one in which the announcement was presumably made, but may cover a number of cases. other sessions, even in which the vote took place.

3. The announcement must allow to determine the future session in which the voting of the bill is going to take place[17], so that the impossibility to establish the session in which it would have occurred procedure, make that an undeterminable or determinable announcement and, consequently, contrary to the requirement provided for in Article 160 of the Charter.

In relation to the latter, it should be noted that, although the case law rules out that in order to verify the requirement of the notice it is necessary to indicate the exact date of the session in which the vote will take place, if it requires that at least That date is determinable[18]. In order to establish what is to be understood by "determinable" in the context of the ad, you have flagged this Corporation[19] than expressions such as "for the next session" or , they are sufficient to consider that if the date and session were defined in which the bill being processed must be voted on and therefore to consider the prior notice requirement to be met.

4. When the vote on a project is postponed indefinitely, so that it does not take place in the session for which it was announced, it is the duty of the boards of directors to continue with the chain of announcements; that is, to reiterate the announcement of the vote in each one of the sessions that precede the one in which the approval of the project is actually carried out, since " there is no other constitutional instrument to guarantee the effective realization of the purpose that is intended to satisfy by the formality of the notice, which, it has been seen, is to prevent the congressmen and the Community in general are surprised by bad or surreptitious votes. " If this does not occur, that is, if the time sequence of the notice is not met when for reasons of legislative practice the debate and vote of a project is postponed indefinitely, it is understood that the vote will be performed in a session other than the one that was announced, failing the requirement provided for in Article 160 of the Policy Charter[20].

In particular, the Court has pointed out that, in spite of presenting the phenomenon of the rupture of the chain of ads with respect to a bill whose vote has been postponed indefinitely, there is no vice of unconstitutionality due to ignorance of the article 160 Constitutional, when in the session immediately before the one in which the approval of the project is surfed, " the same was specifically announced to be voted on in that session "[21]. If the latter has no occurrence, that is, if in addition to breaking the chain of announcements the project postponed indefinitely is voted without having announced such fact in the previous session, it is understood that the requirement of "ad" previously enshrined in the Top 160 article.

In point to the enforceability of the requirement of the previous announcement , the Court has specified that the failure of the Congress of the Republic to comply with the existence of a vice of procedure in the formation of the law, which is of a subsainable or insubsable character, according to the legislative body in which it has taken place. Thus, in Judgment C-576 of 2006 (M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa), this Corporation defined its jurisprudential position on the subject, particularly in the face of laws that approve treaties or conventions. [passage from the Senate of the Republic] [passage from the Senate of the Republic of the Republic], specifying that, in the case of this type of legislation, if the lack of prior announcement has an occurrence in the Chamber, where by express constitutional provision, the process of the bill must begin, that is, in the Senate of the P., article 154), a unsubsainable vice " is configured that triggers the declaration of inexequibility of the law. This is because in that congressional instance the expression of the parliamentary will must be complete and be formed without procedural vices of any kind.

As opposed to the above, it was expressed in the same ruling that when the failure to comply with the requirement of "announced" is at a later stage to the vote in the Plenary of the Senate, that is, in the Chamber of Representatives, this impropriety generates a "vice-healing vice," that brings the law back to the Congress of the Republic so that the action is restored and the approval process is resumed from the stage at which the vice occurred.

The issue was addressed by the Court in the cited C-576 of 2006, in the following terms:

" In harmony with the above criteria and particularities, it must be understood that in matters of laws that approve treaties or international conventions, the essential condition of subsability is that the Senate has given its opinion in such a way that the A chamber where, by constitutional mandate, the process of the draft laws approving a treaty has been initiated has expressed its will in a complete manner. Thus, one of the structural stages of the process, e.g., the approval by the Senate, will have been completed without any vice.

In addition, it should be noted that the Court has for about two years offered several sentences warning about the importance of fulfilling this requirement, which has not prevented the vice from repeating itself, more often, precisely in the Senate, In other words, in the House of origin of the project, it is up to him to decide, first, whether to approve or test the treaty.

This decision, henceforth, should be the expression of a will formed without procedural defects, so that it is understood that one of the structural stages of the process of this class of laws has been completed. In other words, a failure to comply with the requirement of the prior notice set forth in article 160 C. P. until the vote in the Senate Plenary is considered to be a vice in the This is an insubsainable legislative process that will trigger the declaration of inexequibility of the law approving an international treaty. On the other hand, a lack of compliance with the aforementioned requirement at a time after the vote in the Senate Plenary is considered an unsanitary vice that will trigger the return of the approval of an international treaty to the Congress to remedy the vice and continue its proceedings from the moment it occurred, when the other conditions of subsability are met. "

3.2. Breach of the announcement requirement provided for in Article 160 of the Political Constitution. Reiteration of case law surrounding the third debate in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, at the session on May 17, 2006

From the above considerations and in accordance with the description of the formation process of Law 1072 of July 31, 2006, the Court finds that in the third debate in the Second Commission of the House No compliance with the constitutional requirement provided for in paragraph 5 of Article 160 Superior, since the Bill of Law No. 264 of 2006 Chamber, which concluded with the issue of that law, was voted on at the sitting of 30 May 2006, without it was previously announced that the vote would take place in that session and that it could not be inferred from the context.

Following the contents of Act No. 01 of May 17, 2006, published in the Congressional Gazette number 333 of September 1, 2006 (page 12 of the Congress Gazette, a sheet 14 of the Test Notebook 5), It can be seen that the announcement for the vote of Bill 264 of 2006 was made at the joint session of 17 May 2006, and also, that the General Secretariat of the Second Commission of the House, in making use of the word for announce the projects to be considered in later sessions, it was limited to point out: "I announce bills", expression that does not allow you to clearly specify or deduce a certain or determinable date to carry out the discussion and approval of the referred 2006 Bill No. 264.

As a complement to the above, it is also established in the Act 01 of 17 May 2006 that no further reference was made during the course of the meeting to the session in which the projects would have to be debated and voted on. announced, thus ruling out the possibility that such a fact could be deduced from the context of the meeting.

On the latter, it is noted in the precise minutes that after the demonstration of the General Secretariat of the Second Commission of the House, in the sense of pointing out: "I announce bills", the same official proceeded to list a number of projects-including the one that is now being analyzed-to then proceed immediately to the end of the session and to convene for the next one.

To corroborate the above, do not again quote the relevant part of the Act 01 of 17 May 2006:

" The Second House Committee runs out of the Order of the Day and convenes for Wednesday ... the following Tuesday after elections.

The Secretary General of the Second Senate Committee, Dr. Felipe Ortiz Marulanda, has been speaking:

The Second Senate Committee then announces for the Wednesday, May 31 Session outside of the projects already announced in Bill No. 171 of 2005, Bill No. 121 of 2005, Bill No. 126 2005, the 195 of 2005, the 198 of 2005, and 219 of 2005 that were placed in the Order of the Day for discussion of today, remain for Wednesday, May 31.

The General Secretariat of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Dr. Rocio López Robayo, has been used to speak

Mr. President to inform you that there is a ...

The President of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has been used to speak:

Secretary announced Senate projects, we announced House projects and there is a proposition.

The General Secretariat of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Dr. Rocio López Robayo, has been used to speak

Mr. President, yes,

Proposition.

" ... Proposal presented by the honourable Representative Guillermo Abel Rivera Florez, under the recent events in the area of trade and diplomatic relations and specifically those of rapprochement, possibilities and/or negotiations I would like to ask the honourable Member of the House to make an urgent request to the honourable Member of the House to make an urgent request for a debate on control of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The president of the Foreign Ministry, Dr. Carolina Barco, to clarify what happens to the regarding ... ".

The President of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has been used to speak:

Their discussion opens, the proposal read by Rep. Guillermo Rivera, a notice that will be closed. Does the Second Commission approve the proposal read? Approved.

The General Secretariat of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Dr. Rocio López Robayo, has been used to speak

I announce bills (grills and out-of-text underscores).

-- 239 of 2005 Camara, 072 of 2005 Senate, by means of which the Economic Complementation Agreement number 33 Free Trade Agreement concluded between the Republic of Colombia, the United Mexican States and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela-Sixth Additional Protocol " signed in the City of Montevideo.

Bill No. 277 of 2006 Camara, 066 of 2005 Senate, by means of which is declared as cultural and sports heritage of the Nation the Modern Stadium Julio Torres, the cradle of Colombian District football Branquilla special.

-- House Bill No. 264, 073 of 2005 Senate, by means of which the amendment of Article 1 or the Convention on provisions is approved, on discussions of the employment of certain conventional weapons that can be considered to be excessively harmful or of indiscriminate effects, approved in Geneva in 2001 (no text).

-- Project, of Law No. 236 of 2005 Chamber, 090 of 2004 Senate, by means of which the Convention on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial documents in civil or commercial matters, made in La There is November 15, 1965 (bold and out-of-text underscores).

The Secretary General of the Second Senate Committee, Dr. Felipe Ortiz Marulanda, has been speaking:

The Second Senate Committee also announces Bill 108 of 2005.

The President of the Second Chamber of Representatives, Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, has been used to speak:

Thus, the Joint Session of the Second Chamber of the Congress of the Congress of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic present year (Negrills and underscores out of text).

use of the word the honorable Senator Habib Merheg Marun:

Agoted the Order of the Day for the Senate as well, then again is called for Wednesday 31 and we will review the announced projects.

Thank you very much.

The Session is closed at 11:20 a.m. m. ".

It should be noted that the procedural vice that has been referred to has already been detected and declared by the Court in the Order of 28 February 2007 (M.P. Jaime Cordoba Triviño), when reviewing the constitutionality of the Law 1073 , 2006, " by means of which the 'Convention on the Foreign Transfer of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters' is approved;

made in The Hague on November 15, 1965. " This position was subsequently reiterated in the Auto 078 of 21 March 2007 (Ma. P. Clara Ines Vargas Hernández), when reviewing the constitutionality of Law 1074 of 2006, "by means of which the Economic Complementation Agreement number 33 (Free Trade Agreement) is approved Trade) held between the Republic of Colombia, the United Mexican States and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela-Sixth Additional Protocol ', signed in the city of Montevideo, Uruguay, at three (3) days of August of two thousand five (2005) ".

The Court's preliminary ruling, in point to the finding of the procedural vice detected in the joint session of May 17, 2006, is explained, in view of the fact that, in addition to the bill that is being reviewed on this occasion (073 Senado-264) Chamber), in that session were also the subject of announcement to vote the Bills numbers 090 of 2004 Senate, 236 of 2005 House and 072 of 2005 Senate, 239 of 2005 House, which in turn gave way to the expedition of the Laws href="ley_1073_2006.html#1"> 1073 and 1074 , 2006, respectively.

In the 2007 Auto 053, when verifying compliance with the ad requirement provided for in Article 160 Superior, the Court found, as it now reiterates, that in the Third debate of the Second Commission of the House, held in joint session on 17 May 2006, a procedural vice was presented on the Bill of Law No. 236 of 2005 House, 090 of 2004 Senate, because in the said session, the Secretary-General of the Second House Committee had limited itself to saying "Announced Bills", without indicating a certain or determinable date on which the project discussion and approval would take place, and without such a fact being deductible from the session context.

Following the constitutional jurisprudence, this Court concluded in the aforementioned providence, that the announced vice was of a subsable character to have occurred at a stage after the vote in the Plenary of the Senate, that is to say, In the House of Representatives, the House has had to return the law to the presidency of the House so that the action will be restored and the approval process will be resumed from the stage of the announced vice.

Regarding the issue, the Court said in the cited Auto:

" Examined this stage of the session, the Chamber notes that in the event of compliance with the requirement of the announcement of the vote by the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, the Secretariat was limited to indicating the ' announcement of projects. the law ' expression which, in itself, does not allow to elucidate with clarity a certain or determinable date in which the session will be held in which the discussion and approval of the project will take place. Then, and the exhaustion of the agenda had been checked, the board of directors of the joint committees ended the session and then meetings were convened for the second committees of the Senate and the House. However, the date for which the projects announced by the Secretariat of the Second Chamber of the House would be subject to discussion and approval was not defined. Therefore, there is a vice in the process of the bill, in accordance with the jurisprudential rules summarized in this section.

This conclusion is reinforced by the procedure carried out by the Secretariat of the Second Senate Committee to fulfill the aforementioned requirement. In fact, the Court observes that it was expressly stated in that instance that the projects announced there would be studied at the sitting of Wednesday 31 May 2006. Contrary to their view, the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, at the time of the announcement, limited itself to listing the projects, :without establishing any precision on the date of the future session in which they would be put to the vote.

The exposed shutdown persists, even if context is used as the announcement validation parameter. It should be emphasized that during the session, no reference is made to the session in which the announced projects for the House of Representatives case will be discussed and approved. Thus, once the bills for this legislative cell were listed, the session was completed and the following meetings were held for each committee, with no mention of the date of the vote on the initiatives. mentioned.

In view of the fact that the legislative procedure has been established, it is up to the Court to determine whether it is of a subsanctible nature. In this respect, in accordance with the unified position of the case law applicable to the matter, the irregularity presented falls within the assumptions of subsability provided by this Corporation, as:

i] The vice occurred during the third debate of the procedure, that is, when the approval of the bill had already been verified in the Senate of the Republic, thus fulfilling one of the structural stages of the process of forming the law, and

(ii) The votes during the entire procedure were unanimous, without any substantial opposition to the original version of the project established by the National Government, which is why there is no evidence of the violation. of the rights of parliamentary minorities.

Having regard to the foregoing and similar to how this Corporation has ordered it in previous decisions[22], the Court will return the bill to the Second Chamber of Representatives Committee, which was verified the procedural vice, for purposes to resume the processing of the bill, giving compliance to the advertisement for the vote provided for in the final paragraph of article 160 Superior and in accordance with the with the rules expressed in this providence.

In that regard, as provided for in the paragraph of article 241 C. P. and article 202 of Law 5th of 1992, the Court grants the Chamber a term not more than 30 days, counted from the notification of this providence, in order to correct the vice. To this end, in one of the sessions of the Constitutional Commission the vote on the project will be announced for a certain future date, informing the representatives of the number of the Congress Gazette published the paper for the first debate in the said Commission or, if the presidency of the legislative cell considers it appropriate, through the distribution of copies of it.

Verified this procedure, the Congress will have until June 20, 2007, the date on which the present legislature ends, to conclude the process of formation of the law. On this particular point, it must be stated, as has been stated in the case law, that an order of this nature is compatible with the prohibition contained in Article 162 C. P., since the limit of two legislatures applies exclusively to the original formation of the law, without it being able to extend to additional time limits set by the Constitutional Court with the object of filling B_aj"> [23].

law must be sent to the Court to decide on the exequability of the act, as provided for in the paragraph of article 241 Higher.

On this last particular point, it should be noted that the presidential sanction, as far as the same approving act is subject to analysis, will not contract the change in the identification of the law. In this sense, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, at the time of exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, will retain the number of Law 1037 of July 31, 2006. This is because, as this Corporation has maintained [24] the vice-healing of a vice in the legislative process by the Congress does not contract any modification regarding the nominal identification of the project and the resulting approval law. "

It was noted that the position adopted by the Court in the Auto 053 of February 28, 2007, was subsequently reiterated in the Auto 078 of March 21, 2007, in which it was expressed about the particular:

"As in this session the bill that we are dealing with was also announced, as is the 239 of 2005 Camara, 072 of 2005 Senate, the Court will proceed to reiterate the cited Auto 053 of 2007, proposing equal determination".

Thus, in this new opportunity, the Court will reiterate the precedent set in the Auto 053 of February 28, 2007, which was in turn received in the Auto 078 of March 21 of the same year, in the sense of maintaining that in the third debate of the Commission Second of the House, held in joint session on 17 May 2006, a vice of procedure of a subsable character was presented; this time, on the Bill of Law number 73 of 2005 Senate, 264 of 2006 Chamber, that, concluded with the expedition of the Law 1072 of 2006, consisting of not having met the requirement of the announcement provided for in article 160 of the Political Constitution.

As occurred on the previous two occasions, the Court will proceed to return to the Chair of the House of Representatives Law 1072 of July 31, 2006, in order to have the relevant the warning vice is remedied. Likewise, this Court will have to grant to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House a term of thirty, (30) days, counted from the notification of this order to the presidency of the same, for that cell The law will remedy the vice found in this providence. In the light of the above, the House will have until 16 December 2007 to comply with the later stages of the legislative process. Likewise, the President of the Republic shall have the time limit set forth in the Charter to sanction the respectful bill, which shall keep the same number of the approving law that is returned.

Completed, the President of the Congress will refer to the Constitutional Court the Law 1072 of July 31, 2006, so that it may decide definitively on its exequability.

VII. DECISION

On the merits of the above, the Plena Chamber of the Constitutional Court, administering justice on behalf of the people and by mandate of the Constitution,

RESOLVES:

First. By the General Secretariat of this Corporation, return to the House of Representatives Presidency the Law number 1072 of July 31, 2006, " by means of which approves 'the amendment to Article 1 of the Convention on the Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons that may be considered to be excessively harmful or of indiscriminate effects' adopted at the second examination conference of the States Parties to the convention, the Twenty-one (21) December of two thousand one (2001), in Geneva, Switzerland ", in order to remedy the vice of procedure pointed out in this providence.

Second. Concede to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives the term of thirty (30) days, counted from the notification of this Auto to the Chair of the same, for to remedy the vice detected in this providence.

Third. Once the vice referred to in the consideration of this providence has been remedied, the House of Representatives shall, until 16 December 2007, have to comply with the later stages of the process. legislative.

Fourth. Once the legislative process has been completed, the President of the Republic will have the deadline set in the Charter to sanction the bill, which will have to keep the same number of the approved law as returns.

Fifth. Complied with the previous procedure, the President of the Congress will forward to the Court the corresponding law, in order to decide definitively on his exequability.

Copy, notify, communicate, insert in the Constitutional Court Gazette and comply.

RODRIGO ESCOBAR GIL,

President;

JAIME ARAUJO RENTERIA (WITH SAVE OF VOTE),

NILSON PINILLA PINILLA,

MANUEL JOSE CEPEDA ESPINOSA,

JAIME CÓRDOBA TRIVINO,

MARCO GERARDO MONROY GOAT,

HUMBERTO ANTONIO SIERRA PORTO,

ALVARO TAFUR GALVIS Y

CLARA INES VARGAS HERNANDEZ,

Magistrates;

MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA DE MONCALEANO,

General Secretariat.

***

1. Congress Gazette number 124, 2006.

2. Congress Gazette number 124, 2006.

3. Congress Gazette number 18.

4. Congress Gazette number 19.

5. Page 2. Congress Gazette number 333, 2006.

6. Congress Gazette number 333, 2006.

7. Congress Gazette number 340, 2006.

8. Congress Gazette number 220, 2006.

9. Congress Gazette number 229, 2006.

10. Cfr. Auto 038 of 2004 (M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa) and Sentences C-533 of 2005 (M.P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis) and C-864 of 2006 (M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil).

11. Cfr. Sentences C-644 of 2004 (M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil), C-576 of 2006 (M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa) and C-864 of 2006 (M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil).

12. 12 Cfr. Sentences C-473 of 2005 (M.P.), C-241 of 2006 (M.P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra) and C-322 of 2006 (M.P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra). You can also consult the 2006 Auto 311 (M.P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra).

13. Auto 331 of 2006 (M.P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra).

14. Auto Ibidem.

15. Cfr. Judgment C-1040 of 2005 (M.P.) and Auto 311 of 2006 (M.P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra).

16. The following Sentences: C-780 of 2004 (M.P. Jaime Córdoba Trivino), C-4000 of 2005 (M.P. Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto), C-473 of 2005 (M.P. Manuel José, Cepeda Espinosa), C-931 , 2005 (M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa), C-1155 , 2005 (M.P.), C-276 , 2006 (M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa) and C- 576 2006 (M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa).

17. Cfr. The Sentences C-780 of 2004 (M.P. Jaime Córdoba Trivino) and C-649 of 2006 (M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa). In the same sense, the 2006 Auto 311 (M.P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra) can also be consulted.

18. Cfr. Auto 089 of 2005 (M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa).

19. Cfr. The Sentences C-533 of 2004 (M.P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis) and C-473 of 2005 (M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa).

20. Cfr. Sentences C-930 2006 (M.P. Jaime Córdoba Trivino) and C-2006 (M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil). Judgment C-2006 (M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil).

21. Judgment C-2006 (M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil).

22. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-576/06 and auto A-311/06.

23. Cfr. Constitutional Court, auto A-089/05.

24. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-863/06 and Auto A-018/07. On the particular subject of the double numbering of the laws, after the cure of a vice procedure, the aforementioned sentence stipulated the following: "The presidential sanction is limited to" approving the corresponding project "by the" Government " and "attest to its authenticity." In addition, according to Decree 2719 of 2000, the numbering is given on "laws already sanctioned", for being such a numbering of the law, an administrative procedure that must be carried out "keeping a numerical sequence indefinite and not by year", the requirement laid down in Article 194 of Law 5 of 1992. // The constitutional case law in previous situations in which a law has been sent back to Congress to be subsated by the lack of a form of vices, gives an account of the fact that the law number has generally been respected in the process of initially assigned.

This is the case, for example, of the 1992 C-607 statement, (MP. Alejandro Martínez Caballero), in which the Law 1of 1992 that suffered from a vice of form, was returned to the Congress. After being subsated in its processing and sanctioned at a second opportunity, its original law number was respected. So the Constitutional Court, once corrected the vice of form that fell on the Law 1of 1992, declared it exequable. In the sanction, the National Government, with signatures of the President of the Republic and the Minister of Government, of the moment, sanctioned the corrected bill, as follows: " In compliance with what was ordered by the Constitutional Court, the National Government endorses the acts by which the Congress of the Republic subsated the procedural vices in which it incurred in issuing the Law 1of 1992 " .//In the case that occupies us, the Court warns the next:

i) The first law number-869 of 2004-is the one that identifies the approval law that is the object of the control exercised in this process;

ii) The will of the Legislator, in compliance with Auto 089 of 2005, was to correct the vice of form established by this Corporation in the formation of Law 896 of 2004;

iii] The bill was always the same, that is, at 212/03 Senate, 111/03, as it can be confirmed in all the papers and debates that were submitted to the Congress, and in its referral for presidential sanction. committed an administrative error in the numbering, having been assigned a second number to the same law after having been remedied the vice in the formation of the same. However, this error does not change the content of the law or affect the process of its formation in the Congress of the Republic. For the Court therefore, the present analysis of constitutionality is understood to be carried out on the Law 896 of 2004 that approved the ' Convention between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the Republic of Colombia "Bolivia for the recovery of cultural goods and other specific stolen, imported, or illicitly exported", signed in the city of La Paz, at twenty (20) days of August of the year two thousand one (2001) ".