Through Which The "convention On The Service Of Documents Abroad Of Judicial And Extrajudicial Documents In Civil Or Commercial Matters" Approved, Done At The Hague On November 15, 1965

Original Language Title: Por medio de la cual se aprueba la "Convencion sobre la notificacion o traslado en el extranjero de documentos judiciales o extrajudiciales en materia civil o comercial", hecha en La Haya el 15 de noviembre de 1965

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 1073 2006
(July 31)
Official Gazette No. 46,700 of July 25, 2007

CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC Through the convention which approved the notification service in abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, done at the Hague on 15 November 1965. Summary

Term Notes
THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC
having regard to the text of "The Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters" Made in The Hague on 15 November 1965, which the letter says:
(To be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of this International Instruments is attached).
Official number 068-W translation of a document written in English and French.
CONVENTION ON AND SERVICE ABROAD OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING legal or extralegal CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL
(issued on November 15, 1965)
States signatory to this Convention Desiring to create
means to ensure that judicial and extrajudicial documents must be of service abroad are known for their timely recipients.
Desiring to improve in this respect judicial assistance by simplifying and expediting the procedure.
Have resolved to conclude a Convention for this purpose and have agreed as follows: Article 1.
. This Convention applies in civil or commercial matters, to all cases where a judicial or extrajudicial document has to be sent abroad to serve it.
The Convention shall not apply where the address of the recipient of the document is not known. CHAPTER I.

Court documents. Article 2.
. Each Contracting State shall designate a central authority to assume the function of receiving requests for service from another Contracting State and process them in accordance with Articles 3 to 6.
Each State shall organize the Central Authority in accordance with its own law.
Article 3o. The authority or court or state, competent officer under the laws of the State of origin address the central authority of the State addressed a request conforming to the model attached to this Convention without the legalization of documents or other formalities necessary analogously.
The request must be accompanied by court document or copy thereof in duplicate.
Article 4o. If the central authority considers that the request does not comply with the provisions of the Convention, it shall immediately inform the requesting specify its objections to the request.
The 5th Article. The central authority of the requested State shall notify or transfer the document or order its service by through a competent authority, either:
a) According to the procedures established by the law of the requested State for service of documents issued the country and are intended for people who are in their territory; or
b) Depending on the specific procedure requested by the requesting, provided that this is not inconsistent with the law of the State.
Without prejudice to the provisions of the first paragraph, paragraph b), the document can always be delivered to an addressee who accepts it voluntarily.
If the document is to be of service under the first paragraph, the Central Authority may require the document to be written in or translated into the language or one of the official languages ​​of the country.
The part of the request containing the essential elements of the document in accordance with the model attached to this Convention shall be sent to the recipient.
Article 6o. The central authority of the State or any authority has been appointed for this purpose, issue a certificate using the model attached to this Convention.
Certification affirm compliance with the request; It will include the manner, place and date of compliance as well as the person to whom the document was delivered. If the document has not been notified or transferred, certification shall specify the reasons which have prevented compliance with the request.
The requesting certification may request that has not been issued by the central authority or by a judicial authority shall be validated by one of these authorities.
The certificate shall be forwarded directly to the requesting. Article 7.
. The standard terms in the model annexed to this Convention shall be mandatorily written in French or English. They may also be written in the official language or one of the official languages ​​of the State of origin.

Blanks corresponding to such information shall be filled in the required language, in French, or English State. Article 8.
. Each contracting State has the power to process directly through its diplomatic or consular agents to effect service of judicial documents to persons who are abroad, without coercive measures.
Any State may declare that it is opposed to such service within its territory, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the same State. Article 9.
. Each Contracting State also has the power to use consular channels to forward, by the end of service, court documents to other authorities designated for this purpose by the Contracting State.
If exceptional circumstances so require, each Contracting State has the power to use, for such purposes diplomatic channels.
Article 10. Provided the State of destination declare no objection to it, this Convention shall not interfere with:
a) The freedom to send directly by post, court documents to people who are abroad;
B) The faculty of judicial officers, agents or other competent persons of the State of origin, proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through judicial officers or other appropriate officials of the State of destination;
C) The authority in respect of any person interested in a judicial proceeding, proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through judicial officers or other competent persons of the State of destination.
Article 11. This Convention does not preclude Contracting States from agreeing to permit, for the purpose of service of judicial documents, channels of transmission other than those provided in the preceding articles and, in particular, direct communication between their respective authorities.
Article 12. The notifications service of judicial documents coming from a Contracting State shall not give rise to any payment or reimbursement of taxes and costs incurred for the services of the State.
The requesting is obliged to pay or reimburse the costs occasioned by:
a) The employment of a judicial officer or a person competent under the law of the State of destination;
B) The use of a specific form.
Article 13. Compliance with a request for service in accordance with the provisions of this Convention may be refused only if the State deems that compliance by its nature, affects its sovereignty or security.
You can not refuse compliance on the sole ground that the requested State claimed its exclusive jurisdiction for the procedure in question or that its internal law does not support the action that the petition refers to.
In case of rejection of the request, the central authority shall immediately inform the requesting and state the reasons.
Article 14. The difficulties arise during remission at the end of service of judicial documents shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
Article 15 Where a writ of summons or an equivalent document has been sent abroad for the purpose of service, under the provisions of this Convention, and the defendant fails to appear, the judge will wait as long as necessary to proferir judgment until it is established that:
a) the document was notified or has been transmitted to it within the forms prescribed by the law of the requested State for service of documents in domestic actions and are intended for people who are in their territory, or
b) the document was actually delivered to the defendant or to his residence by other procedures laid down by this Convention, and, in either case, is notification, transfer or delivery, it took place in time to enable the defendant to defend.
Each contracting State has the power to declare that the judge, however not the provisions of the first paragraph may proffer sentence despite either delivery have not received any certifying either the notification or communication transfer, if the following conditions are met:
a) the document has been issued by one of the methods provided for in this Convention;

B) has, from the date on which the document after a period that the court will consider each case individually and not less than six months;
C) Notwithstanding appropriate to the competent authorities of the State proceedings, it was unable to obtain any certification.
This article does not prevent, in case of emergency, the judge may order any provisional or protective measure.
Article 16 Where a writ of summons or an equivalent document has had to be transmitted abroad for the purpose of service, under the provisions of this Convention, and has been issued a decision against a defendant who failed to appear, the judge will have the power to relieve the defendant from the effects of the expiration of the time for appeal if the following conditions are met:
a) the defendant, without any fault on his part, he did not know in time timeliness of such document to defend themselves or to appeal the decision;
B) The arguments of the defendant, prima facie, seem substantiated.
The demand tending to the application for relief is admissible only if it is filed within a reasonable time from the time when the defendant has knowledge of the decision.
Each Contracting State may declare that such application will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of a period of time to be stated in its declaration, but which shall not be less than one year, counting from the date of the decision.
This Article shall not apply to judgments concerning status or capacity of persons.
CHAPTER II.
Extrajudicial documents.
Article 17 Extrajudicial documents emanating from authorities and judicial officers of a Contracting State may be transmitted for the purpose of service in another Contracting State under the terms and conditions provided for in this Convention.
CHAPTER III.
General provisions.
Article 18. Each Contracting State may, in addition to the central authority, designate other authorities, determining the scope of its powers.
However, the requesting will always have the right to go directly to the central authority.
Federal States have the power to designate several central authorities.
Article 19. This Convention shall not preclude the domestic law of a Contracting State permits other forms of remission not covered by the above items, for the purposes of service of documents from abroad within its territory.
Article 20. This Convention shall not preclude the adoption of agreements between Contracting States to avoid:
a) article 3, second paragraph, concerning the requirement for duplicate copies of documents submitted;
B) The third paragraph, and the 7th article, concerning the use of languages ​​article 5;
C) The article 5, fourth paragraph;
D) Article 12, second paragraph.
Article 21. Each Contracting State shall notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, either at the time of deposit of its instrument of ratification or accession or later:
a) The designation of the authorities provided in articles 2nd and 18;
B) The designation of the competent authority to issue the certificate referred to in Article 6;
C) The designation of the authority competent to receive documents transmitted by consular under article 9.
If necessary and under the same conditions, notify:
a) opposition to the use of methods of transmission pursuant to Articles 8 and 10;
B) The declarations under Articles 15, second paragraph, and 16, third paragraph;
C) Any modification of the designations, oppositions and declarations referred to above.
Article 22. The present Convention shall replace, in relations between the States which have ratified the Articles 1 to 7 of the Convention on civil procedure signed at The Hague on July 17, 1905 and March 1 1954 respectively, to the extent that those States are parties to one or other of these Conventions.
Article 23. This Convention does not prevent the application of Article 23 of the Convention on civil procedure signed at The Hague on July 17, 1905, or Article 24 of the signed in The Hague on March 1, 1954 .
However, these items do not apply only when using communication systems identical to those provided by these conventions is made.

Article 24. Complementary to the Conventions of 1905 and 1954 agreements concluded by the Contracting States shall be considered as equally applicable to the present Convention, unless the States concerned agree otherwise.
Article 25. Without prejudice to the application of Articles 22 and 24, this Convention shall not abrogate Conventions to which the Contracting States are or may become Parties and which contains provisions on matters governed by this Convention.
Article 26. The present Convention shall be open for signature by the States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
The Convention shall be ratified and instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
Article 27. This Convention shall enter into force on the sixtieth day after the deposit of the third instrument of ratification under Article 26, second paragraph.
The Convention will enter into force for each signatory State ratifying sixty days after the deposit of its instrument of ratification.
Article 28. Any State not represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law may accede to this Convention after its entry into force in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27. The instrument of accession shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
The Convention will enter into force for that State only if there is no objection by any State that has ratified the Convention before such deposit, notified the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands within six months from the date on which the said Ministry has notified the said accession.
If there is no opposition, the Convention will enter into force for the acceding the first day of the month following the expiration of the last of the periods referred to in the preceding paragraph state.
Article 29. Each State may at the time of signature, ratification or accession, declare that this Convention shall extend to all the territories for the international level or to one or more of them. Such declaration shall take effect on the date of entry into force of the Convention for that State.
Thereafter, any extension of this nature shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
The Convention will enter into force for the territories mentioned in such an extension within sixty days of the notification referred to in the preceding paragraph.
Article 30. This Convention will last for five years from the date of its entry into force in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27, even for States which have ratified or acceded to it later.
No denunciation the Convention shall be tacitly renewed every five years.
Any denunciation shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, at least six months before the expiration of five years.
It may be limited to some of the territories to which the Convention applies.
The denunciation shall take effect only as regards the State which has notified it. The Convention shall remain in force for the other Contracting States.
Article 31. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands shall notify the States referred to in Article 26 and the States which have acceded in accordance with Article 28:
a) Signatures and ratifications referred to in Article 26;
B) The date on which this Convention enters into force in accordance with the provisions of Article 27, first paragraph;
C) Accessions in accordance with Article 28 and the date on which they take effect;
D) the extensions referred to in Article 29 and the date on which they take effect;
E) the designations, oppositions and declarations referred to in Article 21;
F) Denunciations under the third paragraph of Article 30.
In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed this Convention.
It Done at The Hague on November 15, 1965, in French and English, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Netherlands and which will be sent via diplomatic a certified copy to each of the States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International law.
MODELS OF PETITION AND certification-
annexed to the Convention (under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 7)

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DOCUMENT REQUEST

THE END OF SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL OR EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENT
Convention on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, signed at The Hague on 15 November 1965.
Identity and address of the requesting address of the recipient requesting
The undersigned has the honor to transmit - two copies, the receiving authority the documents listed, asking him, pursuant to article 5 of the aforementioned Convention, to submit without delay a copy to the recipient, namely:
(identity and address) ...
a) According to legal forms [article 5, first paragraph, letter a)] *
b) According to the following specific formula [article 5, first paragraph, letter b)] *
... c) if applicable, by delivery to the person concerned (article 5, second paragraph) *
... are requested to send or make that authority send the requesting a copy of the document-and their anexos- * certified overleaf. Enumeration of documents

... Done at ... on ... of ... of ... Signature and / or stamp
(Verso request)

CERTIFICATION The undersigned authority has the honor to certify, under Article 6 of the Convention,
1. That the request has been executed *
- (date) ... - in (town, street, number) ...
- in one of the following forms provided for in article 5: a
) According to the forms legal [article 5, first paragraph, letter a)] *
b) according to the following specific form * ...
c) by delivery. * (article 5, paragraph 2) *
the documents referred to in the request have been delivered to:
(Identity and quality of the person) ...
- kinship, subordination or other, the recipient of the document ...
2. That the request has not been executed because of the following facts *

... In accordance with Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Convention, please the requesting payment or reimbursement of expenses the details contained in . the attached statement *

Annexes forwarded documents:

... if applicable, supporting documents execution

... Done at ... on ... ... of ... Signature and / or stamp

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS oF dOCUMENT on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters Convention signed in the Hague on 15 November 1965. || | (article 5, fourth paragraph)
Name and address of the requesting authority ...

Identity of the Parties * ...
JUDICIAL dOCUMENT ** Nature and purpose of the document:
... Nature and purpose of the procedure and, where appropriate, amount in dispute: ...

Date and place to verify appearance: **

... judicial authority which issued the resolution: **

... Date of resolution: * ... Precise information on deadline contained in the document: **
... **

extra-judicial nature and document object: ...

Precise information on deadline contained in the document: **

... this is a true and complete copy of the Spanish translation of the Convention on Notification or Transfer Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, done at the Hague on 15 November of in 1965.
IS FAITHFUL AND COMPLETE TRANSLATION TRANSLATOR

OJEDA JORGE HUMBERTO BOGOTA, DC, 31 JULY 2003
EXECUTIVE BRANCH PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC BOGOTA, DC, 3 SEPTEMBER 2003
APPROVED. SUBMIT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE HONORABLE NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECTS
THE Alvaro Uribe FOREIGN MINISTER
(FDO.)
Carolina Barco Isakson DECREES (FDO.):
Article 1o. Approval of the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters", made in The Hague on 15 November 1965. Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of the 7th Act of 1944, the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters", made in The Hague on November 15, 1965, that article 1 of this law is approved, it will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This Law governs from the date of publication.
Given in Bogotá, DC, honorable
Presented to Congress by the Minister of Interior and Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Minister of Interior and Justice, Sabas
Pretelt de la VEGA EDUARDO
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carolina Barco Isakson

EXECUTIVE BRANCH PUBLIC POWER
PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, DC, September 3, 2003
Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for Constitutional effects

The Alvaro Uribe Minister of Foreign Affairs (sgd.)

Carolina Barco Isakson DECREES (Sgd.) Article 1.
. To approve the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters" made in the Hague on 15 November 1965. Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of the 7th Act of 1944, the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters" made in The Hague on 15 November 1965, which by article 1 of this Act is approved, it will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This Law governs from the date of publication.
The President of the honorable Senate, FRANCISCA TORO TORRES

dilian The Secretary General of the honorable Senate,

DAJUD EMILIO RAMON OTERO President of the Chamber of Representatives , APE CUELLO ALFREDO BAUTE

the Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives, ANGELINO LIZCANO

RIVERA 1073 2006
LAW (July 31)
through which approves the convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters done at the Hague on November 15, 1965.
in compliance with the provisions of Order 053 of February 28, 2007 , File LAT-293 of the Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court, which stated in pertinent part:
"(...)
on this last point, it should be noted that the presidential approval, while refers to the same approvingly act subject to analysis, incur the change in the identification of the law. In this regard, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, when exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, keep the number of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006. This because, as it has held this corporation, curing a defect in the legislative process by Congress does not contract modification with respect to the nominal identification of the project and the resulting approving law. "on the date sanctioned the project again of law No. 90 of 2004 Senate-236 2005 House "by which the convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters is approved" Made in the Hague on 15 November 1965 therefore punishable here Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, retaining its initial numbers and dates.
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA - NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
transmittal and enforcement.
Run, after review by the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 241-10 of the Constitution.
Given in Bogotá, DC, on July 25, 2007.

The Alvaro Uribe Minister of Foreign Affairs Fernando Araújo Perdomo
.
Bogotá, DC, July 17, 2007 Doctor


Alvaro Uribe Velez President of the Republic

City Mr. President:
with all his background and double copy, carefully I allow myself to send to you for your executive sanction the Draft law No. 90 of 2004 Senate - 236 2005 House "by which the convention on the notification approve or service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters "done at the Hague on 15 November 1965.
This draft law was adopted on 31 July 2006 and law 1073 of 2006, then it was referred to the Constitutional Court under Article 241 -10 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court by Auto A-53 of 28 February 2007, he asked Congress to rectify a procedural error and upon completion of the procedure was referred back to the Court for final judgment. By order of 10 July 2007 is returned to Congress for the National Government is sent to be sanctioned in the terms of Auto A-53 of 28 February 2007. Yours sincerely
, ||
DAJUD EMILIO OTERO | Secretary General
Senate.
Bogotá, DC, June 22, 2007 Doctor


GIL RODRIGO ESCOBAR President

City Mr. President,

Duly completed the procedure requested by the honorable Constitutional Court in Auto A -53 of February 28, 2007, and taking into account Article 167 of the Constitution, comedidamente I refer you to his office the record of Bill No. 90 2004 Senate - 236 2005 House "by which the convention on the notification approving or service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters" made in the Hague on November 15, 1965, to final judgment is rendered.
Cordially, FRANCISCA TORO TORRES

dilian President
Honorable Senate CONSTITUTIONAL COURT


AUTO LAT-293
Record Review constitutionality of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006 Convention "through which it passes" on the Notice or Transfer Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters "made in the Hague on 15 November 1965". Substantiating Justice
:
Jaime Córdoba Triviño Bogotá, DC, ten (10) July two thousand and seven (2007).
The undersigned Magistrate, exercising his constitutional and legal powers, and WHEREAS
:
1. By communication of 8 August 2006, the Legal Secretary of the Presidency of the Republic sent to the Corporation Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "through which the approved" Convention on the Notice or Transfer Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters "made in the Hague on 15 November 1965", so that the review of constitutionality under Article 240-10 CP surtiera
2. That through Auto 053 February 28, 2007, the Full Court of the Corporation concluded that the legislative procedure that preceded the adoption of the Law 1073 of 2006 had committed a procedural violation of remediable nature. Accordingly, it is ordered in the operative part of the following ruling:
"First.- By General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, let him return to the presidency of the House of Representatives Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, by whereby the "Convention on the Notice or Transfer Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" approves done at the Hague on November 15, 1965, "in order to process the remedy of defects procedural identified in this decision.
Second: Give yourself to the Second Standing Committee Constitutional Chamber of Representatives within 30 days from the date of notification of this order to the Presidency of the same, to remedy the defect detected in this decision.
Three.- After eliminating the vice that the preamble of this decision referred to the House of Representatives have until June 20, 2007, to meet the later stages of the legislative process. Then the President of the Republic shall have the period specified in the Charter to sanction the bill.
Four.- Fulfilled the previous procedure, the President of Congress sent to the Court Act 1073 of 2006, for a final decision on its constitutionality. "
Three. That through writing filed in the Presidency of the Court on 4 July 2007, the President of the Senate referred the case of Bill No. 90 of 2004 Senate - 236 2005 House "through which approves the "Convention on the Transfer Notice or Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" made in the Hague on 15 November 1965 ". In this respect the notice states that the shipment was done "properly completed the procedure requested by the honorable Constitutional Court in Auto A-53 of 28 February 2007, and taking into account Article 167 (sic) of the Constitution." And in order that the Court utters "final decision".
4. That in accordance with Article 240-10 CP corresponds to the Constitutional Court final decision on the constitutionality of international treaties and the laws approving them. Based on this provision, the third paragraph of Auto A-053 2007 ordered that once corrected the procedural defect, the President of the Republic would be the deadline established in the Constitution to sanction the bill, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 165 CP
5. Who analyzed the documentation submitted to the Court, the undersigned Substantiating Justice notes that in the present case the requirement for presidential approval was pretermitido.
RESOLVED:

Return the corresponding legislative file the bill number 90 236 2004 2005 Senate Chamber "by which approves the" Convention on the Transfer Notice or Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters "made in the Hague on November 15, 1965" to the President of the Senate of the Republic, in order to refer the Government, for the purposes of the respective presidential approval and under the terms provided in the Auto a-053 2007. Once this procedure, you must be awarded to other orders under the court ruling.
Transmittal and enforcement,
Substantiating Judge, JAIME CORDOBA TRIVIÑO

Secretary General, VICTORIA Sáchica MENDEZ MARTHA


CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AUTO -Sala fully

053 2007 Ref .: LAT-293
Record Review constitutionality of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "through which the 'Convention was approved on Notice or Transfer Overseas Judicial and Extrajudicial documents in Civil or Commercial Matters', done at the Hague on 15 November 1965 ".
Judge Speaker: Jaime Cordoba Triviño
Bogotá, DC, twenty-eight (28) February two thousand and seven (2007).
The Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court, in exercise of its constitutional and legal powers, particularly under Article 241, paragraph 10, of the Constitution, has issued the following Order, in the process of reviewing the law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "through which the 'Convention on the Notice or Transfer Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters' is approved, done at the Hague on November 15, 1965 ".
I. TEXT OF THE STANDARD
The law under analysis, whose publication was made in the Official Journal 46346 of July 31, 2006 is as follows: 2006 1073

LAW (July 31)
through which the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters" approved, done at the Hague on 15 November 1965.
the Congress | || having regard to the text of "the Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters" made in the Hague on November 15, 1965, which reads:
(for be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).
BILL NUMBER 90 OF 2004
Through which the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters" approved, done at The Hague on 15
November 1965. the Congress
having regard to the text of the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters", made in the Hague on 15 November
1965. (to be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).
NUMBER 068 OFFICIAL TRANSLATION - W of a document written in English and French
CONVENTION ON THE NOTIFICATION OR MOVING ABROAD OR EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS ON JUDICIAL CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MADE ON 15 NOVEMBER 1965
the states signatory to this Convention,
Desiring to create appropriate means to that judicial and extrajudicial documents must be of service abroad are known for their timely recipients.
Desiring to improve in this respect judicial assistance by simplifying and expediting the procedure.
I have resolved to conclude a Convention for this purpose and have agreed upon the following provisions:

Article 1. This Convention applies to all cases, in civil or commercial matters where a judicial or extrajudicial document has to be be sent abroad to serve it.
The Convention shall not apply where the address of the recipient of the document is not known. CHAPTER I.

Court documents.

Article 2. Each Contracting State shall designate a central authority to assume the function of receiving requests for service from another Contracting State and process them in accordance with Articles 3o 6o.
Each State shall organize the Central Authority in accordance with its own law.

Article 3. The authority or the competent judicial or state official under the laws of the State of origin, will lead to the central authority of the requested State a request in accordance with the model attached to this Convention without being necessary documents legalization or other similar formality.

The request must be accompanied by court document or copy thereof in duplicate.

Article 4. If the central authority considers that the request does not comply with the provisions of the Convention, shall immediately inform the requesting specify its objections to the request.

Article 5. The central authority of the requested State shall notify or transfer the document or order its service by through a competent authority, either:
a) According to the procedures established by the State legislation required to the service of documents issued in the country and are intended for people who are in their territory; or
b) Depending on the specific procedure requested by the requesting, provided that this is not inconsistent with the law of the State.
Without prejudice to the provisions of the first paragraph, paragraph b), the document can always be delivered to an addressee who accepts it voluntarily.
If the document is to be of service under the first paragraph, the Central Authority may require the document to be written in or translated into the language or one of the official languages ​​of the country.
The part of the request containing the essential elements of the document in accordance with the model attached to this Convention, it shall be forwarded to the recipient.

Article 6. The central authority of the State or any authority has been appointed for this purpose, issue a certificate using the model attached to this Convention.
Certification affirm compliance with the request; It will include the manner, place and date of compliance as well as the person to whom the document was delivered. If the document has not been notified or transferred, certification shall specify the reasons which have prevented compliance with the request.
An applicant may request certification that has not been issued by the central authority or by a judicial authority shall be validated by one of these authorities.
The certificate shall be forwarded directly to the requesting. ARTICLE 7.

Printed in the model attached to this Convention shall be mandatorily mentions written in French or English. They may also be written in the official language or one of the official languages ​​of the State of origin.
Blanks corresponding to such information shall be filled in the required language, in French, or English State.

Article 8. Each Contracting State has the power to process directly through its diplomatic or consular notifications service of judicial documents to persons who are abroad, without enforcement agents.
Any State may declare that it is opposed to such service within its territory, unless the document is to be served upon a national of the same State.

Article 9. Each Contracting State also has the power to use consular channels to forward, by the end of service, court documents to other authorities designated for this purpose by the Contracting State.
If exceptional circumstances so require, each Contracting State has the power to use, for such purposes diplomatic channels.

Article 10 Provided the State of destination declare no objection to it, this Convention shall not interfere with:
a) The power to refer directly by post court documents to people who located abroad;
B) The faculty of judicial officers, agents or other competent persons of the State of origin, proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through judicial officers or other appropriate officials of the State of destination;
C) The authority in respect of any person interested in a judicial proceeding, proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through judicial officers or other competent persons of the State of destination.

Article 11 This Convention does not preclude Contracting States from agreeing to permit, for the purpose of service of judicial documents, other channels of different reference to those provided in the preceding articles and, in particular, direct communication between their respective authorities.

Article 12 notifications service of judicial documents coming from a Contracting State shall not give rise to any payment or reimbursement of taxes and costs incurred for the services of the State.
An applicant is required to pay or reimburse the costs occasioned by:

A) The employment of a judicial officer or a person competent under the law of the State of destination;
B) The use of a specific form.

Article 13 Compliance with a request for service in accordance with the provisions of this Convention may be refused only if the State deems that compliance by its nature, affects its sovereignty or security.
You can not refuse compliance on the sole ground that the requested State claimed its exclusive jurisdiction for the procedure in question or that its internal law does not support the action that the petition refers to.
In case of rejection of the request, the central authority shall immediately inform the requesting and state the reasons.

Article 14 Difficulties which may arise during remission at the end of service of judicial documents shall be settled through diplomatic channels.

Article 15 Where a writ of summons or an equivalent document has been sent abroad for the purpose of service, under the provisions of this Convention and the defendant fails to appear, the judge will wait as long as necessary to utter judgment until it is established that:
a) the document was notified or has been transmitted to it within the forms prescribed by the law of the requested State for service of documents in domestic actions and which they are intended for people who are in their territory, or;
B) the document was actually delivered to the defendant or to his residence by other procedures laid down by this Convention, and, in either case, whether notification of transfer or delivery, the same has taken place in time to enable the defendant to defend.
Each contracting State has the power to declare that the judge, however not the provisions of the first paragraph may proffer sentence despite either delivery have not received any certifying either the notification or communication transfer, if the following conditions are met:
a) the document has been issued by one of the methods provided for in this Convention;
B) has, from the date on which the document after a period that the judge will look at each case individually and not less than six months;
C) Notwithstanding appropriate to the competent authorities of the State proceedings, it was unable to obtain any certification.
This article does not prevent, in case of emergency, the judge may order any provisional or protective measure.

Article 16 Where a writ of summons or an equivalent document has had to be transmitted abroad for the purpose of service, under the provisions of this Convention and issued a decision against a defendant who failed to appear the judge will have the power to relieve the defendant from the effects of the expiration of the time for appeal if the following conditions are met:
a) the defendant, without any fault on his part, had no knowledge timeliness of such document to defend or appeal the decision to time;
B) The arguments of the defendant, prima facie, seem substantiated.
The demand tending to the application for relief is admissible only if it is filed within a reasonable time from the time when the defendant has knowledge of the decision.
Each Contracting State may declare that such application will not be entertained if it is filed after the expiration of a period of time to be stated in its declaration, but which shall not be less than one year, counting from the date of the decision.
This Article shall not apply to judgments concerning status or capacity of persons.
CHAPTER II.
Extrajudicial documents.

Article 17 Extrajudicial documents emanating from authorities and judicial officers of a Contracting State may be transmitted for the purpose of service in another Contracting State under the terms and conditions provided for in this Convention.
CHAPTER III.
General provisions.

Article 18 Each Contracting State may also designate the central authority, other authorities, determining the scope of its powers.
However, the requesting will always have the right to go directly to the central authority.
Federal States have the power to designate several central authorities.
Article 19

This Convention shall not preclude the domestic law of a Contracting State permits other forms of remission not covered by the above items, for the purposes of service of documents from abroad within its territory.

Article 20 This Convention shall not preclude the adoption of agreements between Contracting States to avoid:
a) article 3, second paragraph, concerning the requirement for duplicate copies of documents remitted;
B) article 5, third paragraph and the 7th article, concerning the use of languages;
C) The article 5, fourth paragraph;
D) Article 12, second paragraph.

Article 21 Each Contracting State shall notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, either at the time of deposit of its instrument of ratification or accession or later:
a) The designation of the authorities provided articles in 2nd and 18;
B) The designation of the competent authority to issue the certificate referred to in Article 6;
C) The designation of the authority competent to receive documents transmitted by consular under article 9.
If necessary and under the same conditions, notify:
a) opposition to the use of methods of transmission pursuant to Articles 8 and 10;
B) The declarations under Articles 15 and 16 second paragraph, third paragraph;
C) Any modification of the designations, oppositions and declarations referred to above.

Article 22 This Convention shall replace, in relations between the States that have ratified the 1st to the 7th articles of the Conventions on civil procedure signed at The Hague on 17 July 1905 and the 1st March 1954 respectively, to the extent that those States are parties to one or other of these Conventions.

Article 23 This Convention does not prevent the application of Article 23 of the Convention on civil procedure signed at The Hague on July 17, 1905, or Article 24, signed at The Hague on March 1
1954. However, these items do not apply only when using communication systems identical to those provided by these conventions is made.

Article 24 The supplementary agreements to the Conventions of 1905 and 1954, concluded by the Contracting States shall be considered as equally applicable to the present Convention, unless the States concerned agree otherwise. Article 25

Without prejudice to the application of Articles 22 and 24, this Convention shall not abrogate Conventions to which the Contracting States are or may become Parties and which contains provisions on matters covered by this Convention.

Article 26 This Convention is open for signature by the States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
The Convention shall be ratified and instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

Article 27 This Convention shall enter into force on the sixtieth day after the deposit of the third instrument of ratification under Article 26, second paragraph.
The Convention will enter into force for each signatory State ratifying sixty days after the deposit of its instrument of ratification.

Article 28 Any State not represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law may accede to this Convention after its entry into force in accordance with the provisions of Article 27, first paragraph . The instrument of accession shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
The Convention will enter into force for that State only if there is no objection by any State that has ratified the Convention before such deposit, notified the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands within six months from the date on which the said Ministry has notified the said accession.
If there is no opposition, the Convention will enter into force for the acceding the first day of the month following the expiration of the last of the periods referred to in the preceding paragraph state.

Article 29 Each State may at the time of signature, ratification or accession, declare that this Convention shall extend to all the territories for the international level or to one or more of them . Such declaration shall take effect on the date of entry into force of the Convention for that State.
Thereafter, any extension of this nature shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

The Convention will enter into force for the territories mentioned in such an extension within sixty days of the notification referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Article 30 This Convention will last for five years from the date of its entry into force in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27, even for States which have ratified or acceded it subsequently.
No denunciation, the Convention shall be tacitly renewed every five years.
Any denunciation shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, at least six months before the expiration of five years.
It may be limited to some of the territories to which the Convention applies. Denunciation shall take effect only as regards the State which has notified it. The Convention shall remain in force for the other Contracting States. Article 31

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands shall notify the States referred to in Article 26 and the states that have acceded in accordance with the provisions of Article 28:
a) signatures and ratifications referred to in Article 26;
B) The date on which this Convention enters into force in accordance with the provisions of Article 27, first paragraph;
C) Accessions in accordance with Article 28 and the date on which they take effect;
D) the extensions referred to in Article 29 and the date on which they take effect;
E) the designations, oppositions and declarations referred to in Article 21;
F) Denunciations under the third paragraph of Article 30.
In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed this Convention.
It Done at The Hague on November 15, 1965, in French and English, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Netherlands and which will be sent via diplomatic a certified copy to each of the States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International law.
MODELS OF PETITION AND CERTIFICATION

annexed to the Convention (under Articles on the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th)

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DOCUMENT REQUEST AT THE END OF SERVICE IN THE aLIEN judicial or extrajudicial document
on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters Convention, signed in the Hague on 15 November 1965.
identity and address of the requesting
address of the recipient requesting
the undersigned has the honor to submit this in two copies, the receiving authority the documents listed, asking him, pursuant to article 5 of the aforementioned Convention, to send without delay a copy the recipient, namely:
identity and address) ... a) According to legal forms [article 5, first paragraph, letter a)] *
b) According to the following specific formula [article 5, first paragraph, point b)] * ... c) if applicable, by delivery to the person concerned (article 5, second paragraph) * ... are requested to send or make that authority to send a copy of the document requesting-and their certification anexos- * overleaf. Enumeration of documents

... ... ... ... Done at ... on ... of ... ..
Signature and / or stamp.
(Verso request)

CERTIFICATION The undersigned authority has the honor to certify, pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention,
1. That the request has been executed *
- On (date) ...
- In (town, street, number) ...
- In one of the following forms provided for in article 5:
a) according to legal forms [article 5, first paragraph, letter a)] *
b) according to the following specific form * ...
c) by delivery * (article 5, paragraph 2) * ... the documents referred to in the request have been delivered to:
(Identity and quality of the person) ... - kinship, subordination or other, the recipient of the document
... ... ... 2. That request has not been executed because of the following facts *
... ... ... According to Article 12, second paragraph of the Convention, please to requesting payment or reimbursement of expenses the details contained in the attached statement. *

Annexes ... ... ... documents forwarded:
... ... ... if applicable, supporting documents for the execution
... ... ... Done at ... on ... of ... of ... Signature and / or stamp.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DOCUMENT on the notification or transfer abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters Convention signed in The Hague on 15 November 1965.
(article 5, fourth paragraph )

Name and address of the requesting authority:
... ... ... Identity parties: *
... ... ...
JUDICIAL DOCUMENT ** Nature and purpose of the document:
... ... ... Nature & subject of the proceedings and, where appropriate, amount in dispute:
... ... ... Date and place to verify appearance: **
... ... ... judicial authority which issued the resolution: **
... ... ... Date of resolution: **
Precise information on deadline contained in the document: **
... ... ... **
extra-judicial nature and purpose of the document:
... ... ... Indication the deadlines contained in the document: **
... ... ... this is a true and complete copy of the Spanish translation of the Convention on the Transfer Notice or Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial, done at the Hague on 15 November of in 1965.
TRANSLATION IS FAITHFUL AND COMPLETE. TRANSLATOR
:
OJEDA JORGE HUMBERTO BOGOTA, DC, 31 July 2003. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, September 3, 2003 | || Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.)
The Alvaro Uribe Minister of Foreign Affairs,
(Sgd.) CAROLINA Barco Isakson.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters", made in The Hague on 15 November 1965. Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters", done at The Hague on November 15, 1965, that article 1 of this law is approved, it 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, to ...
honorable Presented to Congress by the Minister of Interior and Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Minister of Interior and Justice, Sabas
EDUARDO Pretelt de la Vega.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carolina Barco Isakson
. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, September 3, 2003
Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.)
The Alvaro Uribe Minister of Foreign Affairs,
(Sgd.) CAROLINA Barco Isakson. DECREES
:
ARTICLE 1o. To approve the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters" done at The Hague on 15 November 1965.
Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Convention on the service of documents abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters" made in The Hague on 15 November 1965, which by article 1 of this law is approved, 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,
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
transmittal and enforcement.
Run, after review by the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 241-10 of the Constitution.
Given in Bogotá, DC, on July 31, 2006.

The Alvaro Uribe Foreign Minister, Carolina Barco Isakson
.
II.
INTERVENTIONS 2.1. Foreign Ministry
The citizen Jose Demetrio Matias Ortiz, acting special representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, intervened in this process in order to defend the constitutionality of the international instrument and its passing law.

First, the Ministry clarified that the Convention was subject to analysis result of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, an intergovernmental organization which has as its main objective the progressive unification of the rules of this branch of law, by creation of multilateral legal instruments. Given that the Colombian State was not part of that Conference, the signing of the Convention will be held under the guise of accession mechanism proceed "once completed the formalities of legislative approval and constitutional review; without prejudice to the powers of the executive branch of government than at any time in accordance with the powers provided for in Article 189.2 of the Constitution, for the position of top leadership of international relations ".
Second, regarding the procedure of incorporating international instruments into domestic law, the intervening Ministry argues that with "the purpose of starting the internal constitutional procedures, prior consultations with the competent authorities on September 3, 2003 the President of the Republic ordered to submit for consideration and approval by the Congress of the Republic the draft law approving the Convention ". After given the executive approval on August 23, 2004, the National Government, through the Ministries of Interior and Justice and Foreign Affairs, presented to the General Secretariat of the Senate the corresponding bill. Completed the legislative process, Law 1073 received presidential approval on 31 July 2006. Based on this process, the intervener concludes that the matter under consideration were duly fulfilled the requirements under Article 159-6 Contender CP, regarding the power of Congress to approve treaties; as the conditions laid down in Article 189-2 respect to direction by the President of the international policy of the State and the signing of treaties.
Third, against the material aspect of the Convention, the Ministry intervener claims, from the description of the articles of the treaty, its content agrees to constitutional canons. To support this conclusion, it states that the objective of the instrument is focused on "improving judicial assistance by simplifying and expediting the procedure for notification and service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters". In this sense, "it establishes the channels through which must be formulated and addressed or processed applications; granted a reasonable term for those who could not be notified in due respect to a claim or did not exercise the right of defense, to request the exemption of estoppel; It expects the costs of the proceedings and dispute settlement mechanism. " These aims, in the opinion of the Ministry, develop various constitutional principles, including respect for national sovereignty, recognition of the principles of international law, due process, access to the administration of justice and the principles of the administrative function contained in Article 209 Superior.
2.2. Ministry of Interior and Justice
The citizen Fernando Gomez Mejia, director of legal system of the Ministry of Interior and Justice, submitted written justification of the constitutionality of Law from 1073 to 1006. To do so, he described the legislative process of the bill that preceded the analyzed standard and concluded that the procedure had complied with the provisions of the Constitution.
As the material aspect of the international instrument, the Ministry highlights how the Convention establishes direct channels through central authorities, for the transmission and service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in terms of clarity, economy and efficiency. In this regard, Colombia's accession to the treaty is an appropriate mechanism to promptly and effectively to requests from the judicial authorities regarding the notification of a court order or the transfer of an extrajudicial document to another country response. Schools of this nature is harmonious with the purposes of the rule of law, particularly the effective administration of justice, understood in line with "the needs of the internationalization of legal relations and globalization, in order to simplify judicial and such notification or extrajudicial transfer ".

Similarly, the intervener submits that the provisions of the treaty leaves the possibility that parties benefiting other procedures recognized by practice, by its domestic law or bilateral agreements. From that perspective, "States retain their power to use diplomatic channels to send notifications directly to the recipient, or go to the provisions of its domestic law. It is then that the authorities choose the most appropriate way, without restricting its scope to the possibilities offered by the Convention, and without exceeding the limits imposed by the respective legal system. "
2.3. Notary and Registry
Citizen Roberto Burgos Cantor, Head of the Legal Office Superintendency of Notaries and Registration, involved in this process in order to defend the constitutionality of the regulation under consideration. To this end, it states that in relation to the powers of the Superintendency, the international instrument would be applicable "in the documents authorized by notaries. Currently, the act would require reporting in civil matters and from the perspective of extrajudicial would be those in which the recognition of illegitimate son by deed occurs. || As above, a notarial act and would have its specific notification system who exercises the function of notary abroad, ie, the Colombian consul. || So things did not find any constitutional breach since the Convention is careful to preserve traditional procedures for service of documents abroad. "
III. CONCEPT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE NATION
Attorney General's Office, in exercise of the powers provided in the 242-2 and 278 of the Constitution, introduced concept in the process of reference, which asks the Court to declare the enforceability of the Convention and its passing law.
After describing the formal study of the bill that ended with the Law from 1073 to 1006, the Attorney Vista concludes that that procedure complied with the constitutional and legal requirements, which finds no objection from the constitutional requirements applicable to legislative procedure.
Similar to the comments made by speakers to present in this process way, the Public Ministry considers that the matters covered by the Convention are forms of realization of the constitutional rights to due process and access to justice . For the Attorney General, the topics contained in the international instrument (i) provide legal certainty to allow citizens, both simplify and accelerate the notification procedures and transfer abroad; (Ii) ensure that carried out the notification and service of judicial and extrajudicial documents abroad in less time, granting effectiveness of this form the right of defense; (Iii) avoid unnecessary procedures and simplify procedures, so that legal proceedings can meet the demands of justice in terms of speed and efficiency; and (iv) provide tools for the development of judicial economy, to establish an expedited procedure for the service of the documents mentioned in the international arena.
IV. CONSIDERATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION AND RATIONALE
1. Nature of judicial review of laws approving treaties
In accordance with the provisions of Article 241-10 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to review this international instrument and its passing law. Judicial review carried out by this corporation is completely automatic and relates both to the material content of the Convention and its passing law as on the agreement between the legislative process and constitutional rules.
With regard to the formal aspect for the Court to examine the validity of the representation of the Colombian state during the process of negotiation, conclusion and signing of the treaty, as well as compliance with the rules of the legislative procedure that preceded the adoption law subject to analysis.

Regard, this Court considers that the Constitution does not have a special legislative procedure for the issuance of a law approving an international treaty, so that should follow, in general terms, the same procedure a ordinary law. However, this provision operates obligations unless (i) initiation of the debate in the Senate, as the matters relating to international relations (Art 154 CP.); and (ii) referral of the law passed by the Constitutional Court, by the Government, for purposes of final revision (Art. 241-10 CP).
From this perspective is required, because the ordinary procedure; (I) the official publication of the bill; (Ii) the beginning of the legislative procedure in the corresponding constitutional commission of the Senate; (Iii) regulatory approval in the debates of the Committees and Plenary of each of the chambers (Art 157 CP.); (Iv) between the first and second debate mediate a period not less than eight days and between approval of the project in one of the chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other, spend at least fifteen days (Art. 160 CP ); (V) verification prior to the vote in each of the debates announcement; and (vi) presidential approval and referral of the text to the Constitutional Court within six days (Art. 241-10 CP).
Finally, facing the material aspect or background, the work of the Court is to confront the provisions of international instrument subject to analysis and his law approving all the constitutional requirements, in order to determine whether adjust or not the Constitution.
According to this analytical framework, the Board assumes then the study of the treaty.
2. The review by the formal aspect
2.1. Representation of the State, signing the treaty and presidential approval
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed [1] to the Corporation that the Convention on the Notice of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, hereinafter the Convention, has not been signed by the Colombian State because it is a subject international instrument to accession. Also noted that the President of the Republic imparted to the Convention executive approval on 3 September 2003.
In this regard it must be the object of judicial review in this instance has not crowded as the signing of the treaty it will be produced under the legal figure of accession, which only then check that the Corporation perfected the review of its constitutionality and according to the rules for the conclusion of treaties hereby with articles 11 and 15 of the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties of 1969. in this regard, as it has held this Corporation in similar [2] matters, by subtraction of matter is not possible to study by the Court regarding this action will be checked only once check the constitutionality of multilateral international instrument.
In what has to do with presidential approval of the Convention, must be the President of the Republic met this requirement and ordered the referral of the text to Congress, so that was discussed and approved.
2.2. The legislative process of the bill
envoy to the Court by the Congress legislative record shows that the bill number 090/04 Senate Chamber 236/05, which ended with the issuance of Law 1073 2005, "through which the 'Convention on the Notice or Transfer Abroad of Judicial Documents or Extrajudicial in Civil and Commercial Matters' is approved, done at the Hague on November 15, 1965," filled during the following procedure:
2.2.1. Senate
2.2.1.1. The relevant bill was submitted to Congress by the Minister of Interior and Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
2.2.1.2. His text was published in the Congress Gazette 471 of August 26, 2004 [3].
2.2.1.3. The paper first debate in the Second Committee of the Senate was introduced by Senators Jesus Angel Carrizosa Franco and Habib Merheg Marún and was published in the Congress Gazette 340 of June 9, 2005 [4].

2.2.1.4. According certificate signed by the Secretary General of the Second Committee of the Senate [5], the bill was announced for discussion and approval in the first debate at the meeting on June 15, 2005, as stated in the Act number 37 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 851 of December 2, 2005. this document can be verified that the Secretary of the Commission proceeded to "read out of the projects to be discussed at the next meeting of the Second Committee of Senate as follows: (...) bill 2004 90 Senate, "through which the 'Convention on the Transfer Notice or Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters' is approved, made in the Hague on 15 November 1965 ". (Emphasis original) [6].
Similarly, completed the session, the President convened the following "tomorrow at 9:00 am is the last session of this legislative session to vote bills that have to do with international treaties" [7]. In that sense, the discussion of the bill was announced on June 16, 2005.
2.2.1.5. According certificate signed by the Secretary of the Second Committee of the Senate, the bill was approved in first debate on 16 June 2005 (Act No 38 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 852 of 2 December 2005), with a deliberative and decision-making quorum consisting of 12 of the 13 senators who make up the Committee, who approved the initiative unanimously.
2.2.1.6. The report of the second debate was presented by Senators Jesus Angel Carrizosa Franco and Habib Merheg Marún, and published in the Congress Gazette 835 of November 24, 2005 [8]. According
2.2.1.7 certificate signed by the Secretary General of the Senate [9], the bill was announced for discussion and approval in second debate at the meeting of 29 November 2005, as recorded in the Act number 30 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 15 of 30 January 2006 [10]. He studied the text of that act, it is that on instructions from the President of the Senate, the Secretary "announces projects to be discussed and adopted at the next session. (...) Bill 2004 90 Senate, "through which the 'Convention on the Transfer Notice or Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters' is approved ,, made in The Hague November 15, 1965.
2.2.1.8. According to a certificate issued by the Secretary General of the Senate the bill was considered in second reading on 30 November 2005 with a deliberative and decision-making quorum of 95 of the 102 Senators who make up the Plenary and approved by a majority (Gazette Congress 16 of January 30, 2006 [11]). 2.2.2 House of Representatives

2.2.2.1. First debate gave presentation the representative Jairo Martinez Fernandez, whose publication was held in the Congress Gazette 131 of May 19, 2006 [12].
2.2.2.2. According to a certificate issued by the Secretary of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, 13 in joint session of May 17, 2006 announced the discussion and approval of the bill (Act No 1 of that time, published in the Gazette of Congress 333 of 1 September 2006 [13]).
Revised the minutes of this meeting, it is that the Secretary of the Second Committee of the House, made the announcement of which Article 160 CP, as follows:
"Ad bills
( ...) bill 2005 House number 236, 090, 2004 Senate, by which approves the Convention on the Transfer Notice or Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, done at the Hague the November 15, 1965 "[14].
Similarly, completed the joint meeting, the Chairman of the Commission convened the legislative cell for its next session, to be held on May 30, 2006 [15].
2.2.2.3. According to a certificate issued by the Secretary General of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, the bill was considered and approved in first debate on May 30, 2006 attended by 13 representatives and was adopted unanimously (Act No 23 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 340 of September 4, 2006).
2.2.2.4. For the second discussion paper was presented by the representative Jairo Martínez Fernández and was published in the Congress Gazette 175 of June 8, 2006 [16].

2.2.2.5. Accordingly certified by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives [17], at its meeting on June 7, 2006 announced the discussion and approval of the bill (Act No 234 of the same date, published in the Gazette Congress No 220 of August 27, 2005 [18]).
This regard it is noted that in the said meeting, the Secretary General of the Chamber, by orders of the President of the Corporation, made the announcement of the project in the following terms:
"These projects are announced in accordance with Article 160 of the Constitution, under the terms to be discussed and voted on at the next session of the House of Representatives. (...) Bill 2005 House number 236, 690 (sic) 2004 Senate ".
Regard, the Court finds that the error in the number of the bill in the Senate is attributable, in any case, to an inadvertent error of transcription as the reference of the initiative for the case of Camera it allows state without one that is the announcement of the bill subject to analysis doubt.
Finally, we find that at the end of the session, was raised by the Chair of the House and called again for "next Tuesday at three in the afternoon," that is, on 13 June 2006.
2.2.2.6. According to a certificate issued by the Secretary General of Chamber in plenary session on June 13, 2006, at which 153 representatives were present, it was considered and adopted by most of those present the bill subject of this analysis of constitutionality. (Act No 235 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 229 of July 12, 2006 [19]).
2.3. Existence of a correctable defect in the legislative process
From the sequence described, the Court observes that in relation to the bill that ended with the provision under study, can be validly concluded that (i) began its process in the Senate of the Republic; (Ii) it was previously published at the beginning of the legislative process; (Iii) it was approved on first and second debate in each of the legislative chambers, in accordance with the majorities required by the Charter and Rules of the Congress; (Iv) the papers both in committee and in plenary were published before the start of discussions; and (v) between the first and second debate in each chamber, and between project approval in one of the chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other they spent the terms stated in the first paragraph of Article 160 Superior.
But in the case of requirement of prior to the vote on the bill announcement, expected in the final paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution, added by article 8 of Legislative Act 1st 2003, the Court must make some specific considerations, while compliance with this condition during the third debate of the legislative process, stocked in the Commission Second Permanent Constitution of the House of Representatives, has certain vicissitudes that must be analyzed in detail by the Corporation, in order to determine whether it is in the presence of a defect that affects the legislative procedure.
2.3.1. The unified jurisprudence of this Court on the matter [20] provides the announcement of the vote as a mechanism to ensure proper formation of the democratic will within the legislative chambers. This to the extent that allows congressmen are previously and duly informed about the bills and legislation to be submitted for approval at each session, so that are not surprised by the processing of untimely, inconsistent feedback to the debate sufficient relevant initiatives.
As these considerations, the Court has ruled opportunity conditions to be met before the vote announcement. Thus, you have to [21] (i) the announcement must be present in the voting on any bill; (Ii) the notice must give the presidency of the Chamber or the Commission in a different and prior to that in which the vote on the draft session must be done; (Iii) the date of the vote must be true, that is, determined or at least determinable; and (iv) a bill can not be voted on in a different session than that for which it has been announced.

Similarly, previous decisions of this Court [22] have taken various legal issues relating to the existence and validity of prior notice. From these discussions, the Court has set jurisprudential rules defined [23] about the requirements to be met by the legislative process. Thus, there is provided, first, that there is no sacramental formula or textual phrase should use the Congress to make notice, provided that the expression used clearly convey the intention of the board to vote on a given project law in a defined future session. In that regard, the Court has given constitutional validity expressions such as "consider" or "debate" [24] and even understood that the simple term "advertisement" used in the context of legislative debates in order to mention projects will be discussed at a future meeting, can prove compliance with the procedures laid down in the final paragraph of Article 160 CP this to the extent that a procedure of this nature is only required during the legislative procedure for the purposes specified in the said constitutional law [25].
Second, the constitutional jurisprudence considers that the particular context of the discussions or debates can serve as a parameter validation, in order to prove "if an ad was actually, if the announcement made by the secretariat at the request of the presidency included the intention to debate and vote on the project announced and finally, if the session for which the vote was announced is a determinable date "[26]. It has also been noted by the precedent commented that the context of which the validation criteria "is not limited to the session at which the announcement was made, but may include other sessions, including those that took place extracted the voting "[27].
Under this criterion, the Corporation has given valid legislative actions while not themselves provide strict clarity about the announcement and the date of the meeting at which the approval of the respective project be verified, put into context allow congressmen achieve sufficient certainty about this procedure. By way of example, C276 / 06 Judgment, who studied the constitutionality of the legislative procedure which concluded with the issuance of Law 967 of 2005 "by which the Convention on approving international interests in mobile equipment and its protocol on matters specific to aircraft equipment to the Convention on international Interests in Mobile equipment, signed at Cape town on sixteen (16) November two thousand and one (2001) "the Court upheld the constitutionality of ad when the House used the terms "discuss" or "discussion" on a "next session" while these, understood within the context of the legislative process allowed the infiriesen parliamentarians that it was the fulfillment of the requirement laid down in Article 160 CP on the matter, the Chamber found that although the use of the terms "approval and vote" had given greater certainty about the process, it was not required a sacramental formula when, as in the matter under study at that time, the context allowed univocidad give meaning to those words.
Conversely, in Auto 311 of 2006, the Court concluded the existence of a defect in the formation of Law 1017 of 2006, "through which the 'Convention on Laundering, detection and confiscation of approved products of a crime ', made in Strasbourg on 8 November 1990, "since the announcement during the proceedings in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives did not give a date determinable vote, even if appealed to the context of the procedure as parameter validation.

To reach this conclusion, the Board identified the conditions set by the constitutional jurisprudence so that it can validly be preached that the date for which the announcement was made is fixed or determinable. To this end, he recalled the precedent set by the Court in Order 089/05, according to which the condition "required for compliance at a previous meeting that the projects to be discussed and voted on at a later session are announced, as long as is convened for approval at a future date predetermined and fixed, or at least determinable. " Similarly, the ruling brought up the analysis made by the Corporation in Judgment C-649/06, in which the unconstitutionality of Law 992 of 2005, approving the Agreement for the integral development and basic assistance of indigenous peoples declared Wayúu of the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Venezuela, constitutional rule which was founded precisely unable to determine the date for which the vote was announced in one of the debates of the legislative process. The arguments of the Court at that time were:
It follows from the above facts shows the following. First, prior to the voting session he warned not what future session the vote on the draft law court would take place. Second, the explanatory note, only refers to the verb used (instead of approving announce), and says nothing about the essential aspects of the announcement, eg, the session that in a future, determined or determinable date, will be used to vote on the bill. Third, before the explanatory note, it was approved and published in the Gazette of Congress the minutes of the meeting at which the Secretary of the Second Committee says "here is approved" without any explanation. Fourth, the explanatory note is after the vote and therefore can not be understood as suitable to replace the lack of prior notice. Moreover, the explanatory note is published in a Gazette about a year after carried out the vote in the Second Committee of the Senate. Finally, the context in which the facts can not infer reasonably that has been announced with a sufficient degree of certainty at which meeting the relevant bill would be voted, as required by Article 160 of the Charter were presented.
Based on these considerations, the Court found that in the analyzed procedure had failed to comply with the constitutional requirement of the announcement of the vote, as in "the case, as is clear from reading the Act number 12 2005, before the end of the debate by the President of the Commission and request the General Secretariat to continue reading the agenda, the Secretariat reported: "Mr. President, would be to announce 3 projects" without purpose I had mentioned, nor did the President, to what date or what session was scheduled to vote. " This finding persisted even in the alternative to appeal to the context of discussion as a parameter validation, since "the content of the minutes no element that can be deducted for what session or what date was scheduled to vote on the draft, whether extracted that approval of the same had happened in the next session. The omission in the indication of the date or session that would take place this procedure makes an announcement that determined or determinable and not, therefore, contrary to the requirements specified by the law ".
Finally, the precedent analyzed pretermisión states that the requirement is a defect of remediable nature, in the case of laws approving treaties, provided that the corresponding legislative process has been verified in full in the Senate , thereby consolidating one of the structural stages of the formation process of the law. In terms of jurisprudence, the possibility of remedy of defects is conditional upon "the Senate has decided so that the House where constitutional mandate has initiated the process of draft laws approving a treaty has been expressed so completes its will. Thus, one of the structural stages of the process, eg, approval by the Senate, will be fully completed no vice "[28].

This, however, should be applied in each legislative procedure in keeping with the need to protect the rights of minorities represented in Congress. Therefore, as I ordered the Court Order 089/05 previously reviewed, the nature of the defect remedied is also conditional on the preservation of the rights of minorities within the legislative process. As stated in that Order, the vice will become irretrievable when "affects the principle of representation of minority opinion, so that, for failing to report the results of the vote would have given a direction different from the act subject to approval "[29].
Based on these considerations, the Chamber to analyze the scope, in terms of the constitutionality of the legislative procedure, the assortment announcement during the processing in the third debate of the project that preceded the Law from 1073 to 1006.
2.3.2. As noted in the preceding paragraph, the prior announcement during the third debate of the procedure was carried out at the joint session of May 17, 2006, because of the urgency message of the National Government in connection with the discussion and adoption of the Draft Senate bill 254/06, 271/06 House "through which the procurement of goods and services for the defense and national security is regulated." It approved the initiative by both legislative cells, it proceeded to make announcements and calls for the following sessions in each of the committees. In this regard, on page 12 of the Congress Gazette 333 of September 1, that contains the minutes of the joint session, reads as follows:
"(...)
The Second Committee of the House of Representatives exhausts the agenda and calls for Wednesday ... the following Tuesday after elections. Project
The Second Senate Committee then announced for Wednesday's session on May 31 outside the projects already announced:
makes use of the word the Secretary General of the Second Committee of the Senate, Dr. Felipe Ortiz Marulanda law No. 171 of 2005, the Draft law No. 121 of 2005, bill No. 126 2005, 195 2005, 198 2005 and 219 of 2005 which were placed on the agenda for discussion day today, they are for Wednesday 31 May.
It makes use of the word the General Secretary of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, Dr. Rocio Lopez Robayo:
Mr President to tell you that there is a ...
President makes use of the word the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, Representative honorable Efrén Antonio Hernandez Diaz:
Secretary announced plans Senate Chamber announced projects and there is a proposition.
It makes use of the word the General Secretary of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, Dr. Rocio Lopez Robayo:
Mr President, yes, Proposition
.
"... Proposition presented by the honorable Representative Guillermo Rivera Abel Florez, under recent developments in trade and diplomatic relations, and specifically those of approach, possibilities and / or negotiations being carried out by the Colombian government to be a member of the Organization of the Treaty of the North, NATO Atlantic, I allow myself politely ask the honorable Second Committee of the Chamber is acknowledged urgently to debate political control to the Chancellor, Dr. Carolina Barco to be clarified what happens about...".
The Chairman of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, Representative honorable Efrén Antonio Hernandez Diaz makes use of the word:
discussion opens, the read proposal of Representative Guillermo Rivera, notice will close. Does the Second Committee Approves the proposal read? Approved.
It makes use of the word the General Secretary of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, Dr. Rocio Lopez Robayo:
Ad bills.
- 239 2005 House, Senate 072 2005, through which the "Economic Complementation Agreement No. 33 Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Colombia, the United Mexican States and the Bolivarian Republic of approving Venezuela Sixth Additional Protocol ", signed in the City of Montevideo.
- Draft law number 277 of 2006 House, Senate 066 2005, by which is declared as cultural and sporting heritage of the Nation Julio Torres Modern Stadium cradle of Colombian football the Special District of Barranquilla.
- Draft Law No. 178 of 2005 House, Senate 249 2005, through which the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection" is approved.

- Draft law number 261 of the House, Senate 068, through which honors the drivers of public and private service country surrenders and National Day Driver is declared.
- Draft law number 238 of 2005 House, Senate 256, through which the offenses of breach of the administrative decision, expulsion and illegal reimbursement to typify foreign country in order to protect the safety of State.
- Bill 264th of the House, Senate 073 2005, by which the amendment to article 1 of the Convention provisions, discussions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious approved or to Have indiscriminate effects, adopted in Geneva in 2001.
- Draft law number 236 of 2005 House, Senate 090 2004, by which approves the Convention on the service of documents abroad documents court in civil or commercial matters, done at the Hague on 15 November 1965.
makes use of the word the Secretary General of the Second Committee of the Senate, Dr. Felipe Ortiz Marulanda:
the Second Senate Committee announced also the bill 108th 2005.
makes use of the word the Chairman of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, Representative honorable Efrén Antonio Hernandez Diaz:
So then the Joint Session of the Committees culminates Second Congress of the Republic Chamber Second Committee, convenes or quoted Congressmen of the Commission for Tuesday May 30 this year.
It makes use of the word the honorable Senator Habib Merheg Marún:
Out the agenda for the Senate too, then reconvene for Wednesday 31 and review the projects announced. Thank you very much.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 am ".
Examined this stage of the session, the Chamber notes that in the case of satisfying the requirement of the announcement of the vote by the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, the Secretariat merely indicated the "announcement of projects law "expression that, in itself, does not allow clearly elucidate a fixed or determinable date on which the meeting that will take place the discussion and approval of the project will be held. Immediately afterwards and exhaustion on the agenda having been found, the board of the joint committees adjourned the session and then two meetings for the Second Committees of the Senate and House were called. However, no date defined for which they would be subject to discussion and approval of the projects announced by the Secretary of the Second Committee of the House. Therefore, this constitutes a defect in the processing of the bill, in accordance with the jurisprudential rules summarized in this section.
This conclusion is reinforced by the proceeding conducted by the Secretariat of the Second Committee of the Senate to fulfill the aforementioned requirement. Indeed, the Court observes that in this instance is expressly stated that there announced projects would be studied in the session on Wednesday May 2006. contrario 31, the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, when making the announcement, it merely listed the projects, without establishing some precision on the date of the future meeting would be subject to a vote.
The conclusion reached persists, even if the context is used as a parameter validation announcement. On the subject it should be emphasized that during the session no reference to the session that will be discussed and approved projects announced for the case of the House of Representatives is made. Thus, once the bills listed under this legislation cell, it proceeded to terminate the meeting and convene the following for each committee, without mention of the date of voting on initiatives mentioned it was done.

Before check of vice in the legislative procedure, the Court must determine whether it is remediable nature. In this regard, according to the unified position of the law applicable to the matter, it must be the irregularity presented falls within the assumptions of remediableness provided by the Corporation, as (i) the defect occurred during the third debate of the procedure, this that is, when he had already verified project approval in the Senate, thereby fulfilling one of the structural stages of the formation process of law; and (ii) voting during the entire proceedings were unanimous, without which run parallel somehow substantially to the original version of the bill filed by the national government opposition, why there is no evidence of the violation of the rights of minorities parliamentary.
View of the above and in a similar manner as ordered by this Court in previous decisions [30], the Court shall return the draft to the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, a body in which the procedural error was verified, in order to resume the processing of the bill, giving effect to the listing for voting provisions of final paragraph of Article 160 Superior and in accordance with the rules expressed in this decision.
In that sense, as provided in paragraph CP Article 241 and Article 202 of Law 5 of 1992, the Court granted to the House a maximum term of 30 days from the date of notification of this decision , to proceed to remedy the defect. To this end, in one of the sessions of the Constitutional Commission vote on the draft for a future date to be announced, informing the representatives the issue of the Gazette of Congress in which was published the paper for the first debate in the aforementioned Commission or, if the president of the legislative cell deems appropriate, through the distribution of copies of it. Verified
this process, Congress will have until June 20, 2007, the date on ending the current legislature, to complete the formation process of the law. In this regard it should be clarified, as it has declared the constitutional jurisprudence, that an order of this nature is compatible with the prohibition contained in Article 162 CP, since the limit of two terms applies only to the original formation of the law, but it may not be extended to additional deadlines set by the Constitutional Court in order to remedy procedural problems [31].
After the procedure stocked in Congress and presidential approval in the terms set out in the Constitution, the law should be sent to the Court to decide on the constitutionality of the Act, as provided for in Article 241 paragraph Superior.
On this last point, it should be noted that the presidential approval, while approvingly refers to the same act subject to analysis, it will not catch the change in the identification of the law. In this regard, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, when exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, keep the number of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006. This because, as this Court has held [32], the correction of a defect in the legislative process by Congress does not contract modification with respect to the nominal identification of the project and passing the resulting law.
V. DECISION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court, administering justice on behalf of the People and by mandate of the Constitution, Resolves
:
First. For General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, let him return to the presidency of the House of Representatives Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "through which the 'Convention on the service of documents approved Abroad of Judicial Documents or extrajudicial in Civil or Commercial Matters', done at the Hague on November 15, 1965, "in order to process the procedural remedy of defects identified in this decision.
Second. Treat yourself to the Second Standing Committee Constitutional Chamber of Representatives within 30 days from the date of notification of this order to the Presidency of the same, to remedy the defect detected in this decision.

Third. Once corrected the defect that the preamble of this decision referred to the House of Representatives have until June 20, 2007, to meet the later stages of the legislative process. Then the President of the Republic shall have the period specified in the Charter to sanction the bill.
Room. Completed the previous procedure, the President of Congress sent to the Court Act 1073 of 2006, for a final decision on its constitutionality.
Cópiese, report, please insert in the Gazette of the Constitutional Court and enforcement.
Rodrigo Escobar Gil, President; Jaime Araújo Rentería (with dissenting opinion); Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, Jaime Córdoba Triviño, Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Alvaro Tafur Galvis, Clara Inés Vargas Hernández, Judges; Victoria Sáchica Martha Mendez, General Secretary. ***

1. Cfr. Communication of 28 August 2006, signed by the Coordinator of the Area of ​​Treaties Legal Advisory Office. Notebook Folio 1 6
2 tests. On this same subject, are available Judgments C-002/96, MP José Gregorio Hernández Galindo, C-249/99, MP Antonio Barrera Carbonell and José Gregorio Hernández Galindo and C-276/06, MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa.
3. Cfr. Folios 3 to 9 Notebook tests 1.
4. Cfr. Folio 108 Notebook 3.
5 tests. Cfr. Notebook Folio 1 1
6 tests. Cfr. Congress Gazette 851/05, p. 2.
7. Ibid, p. 12.
8. Cfr. Folios 97-99 3. Notebook
9 tests. Cfr. Folio 86 Notebook tests 2.
10. Cfr. Folio 135 Notebook 2.
11 tests. Cfr. Folio 176 (back) Notebook 2.
12 tests. Cfr. Folios 101 (back) to 102 Notebook 3.
13 tests. Cfr. Folios 1-2 3. Notebook
14 tests. Cfr. Congress Gazette 333/06 p. 12.
15.
16 Ibid. Cfr. Folio 128 Notebook 3.
17 tests. Cfr. Folio notebook 3 5.
18 tests. Cfr. Folio 171 Notebook 5.
19 tests. Cfr. Folio 94 Notebook 5.
20 tests. On this particular collection is available recently by the Court in Order 311/06. On this occasion, plenary identified a fundamentally flawed in the announcement for the vote on third reading of the legislative process that ended with the enactment of Law 1017 of 2006, "through which the 'Convention on Laundering, approved and confiscation of the proceeds of crime ', made in Strasbourg on 8 November 1990 ". He therefore ordered to return the rule to the House of Representatives, to remedy a process in the sense of correcting the defect in the announcement of the vote in the Second Committee of the congressional instance.
21. Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-576/06.
22. In this regard, the Auto 311/06 refers to the judgments C-400/05, C-473/05, C-1151/05, C-322/06, C-576/06, like the Auto 089/05 .
23. On these jurisprudential rules, Cf. Constitutional Court, Auto 311/06.
24. Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-473/05.
25. Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-1040-1005.
26. Cf. Constitutional Court, Auto 311/06.
27. Ibid.
28. Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-576/06.
29. Cf. Constitutional Court, Auto A-311/06.
30. Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-576/06 and self-311/06.
31. Cf. Constitutional Court, auto A-089/05.
32. Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-863/06 and Auto A-018/07. On the particular issue of the double numbering of the law, after the correction of a procedural defect, the judgment stipulated the following:

"The presidential approval is limited to 'approve the project concerned' by the 'government' and 'vouch for its authenticity'. In addition, according to Decree 2719 of 2000, the numbering is given on 'law and punished' for being such numbering law, a procedure of an administrative nature to be carried out 'keeping an indefinite and non-numeric sequence per year', of according to the requirement established by Article 194 of Act 5 of 1992. || The constitutional jurisprudence in previous situations that was returned to Congress a law to be remedied vitiated by procedural defects, realizes that generally the process of correction has been respected law number initially assigned. This is the case, for example, the Judgment C-607 of 1992, (MP Alejandro Martinez Caballero), in which the 1st Act of 1992 suffered from procedural defect, was returned to Congress. After being remedied in the proceedings and passed in a second chance, he respected his number of original law. So the Constitutional Court, once the procedural defect which fell on the 1st Act of 1992 corrected the declared constitutional. In the sanction, the national government, with signatures of the President of the Republic and the Minister of Government at the time, agreed to the draft revised law, as follows: 'In compliance with the order by the Constitutional Court, the Government national endorses the acts for which the Congress corrected the procedural errors it incurred in issuing the 1st Act 1992 ". || In the present case, the Court notes the following: (i) the first law -the number 869 of 2004 is the one that identifies the object law approving the control exercised in this process; (Ii) the will of the Legislator, in compliance with Auto 089 of 2005, was to correct the formal defect found by the Corporation in the formation of Law 896 of 2004; (Iii) the bill always corresponded to the same, that is, the Senate 212/03, 111/03 House, as can be confirmed in all the presentations and discussions that were dispensed in Congress, and referral for presidential approval. || However, an administrative error was made in the numbering, having been assigned to a second number to the same law after being vice remedied in forming it. However the error does not change the content of the law and affects the process of its formation in the Congress. For the Court therefore this analysis constitutionality means carried on Law 896 of 2004 which approved the 'Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia for the recovery of cultural property and other specific stolen, illegally imported or exported ', signed in the city of La Paz, twenty (20) days of August of the year two thousand and one (2001) ".


Related Laws