(July 31)

Official Journal No. 46,741 of 4 September 2007

CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

By means of which the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the purposes of detection" is approved, made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991).

COLOMBIA CONGRESS

Seen the text of the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Detection, made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991), which to the letter says:

(To be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of the international instrument mentioned).

CONVENTION

On Plastic Explosives Marking for Detection Purposes

States Parties to the Present Convention,

CONSCIOUS of the repercussions of acts of terrorism on international security;

EXPRESSING deep concern over terrorist acts aimed at destroying aircraft, other means of transport and other targets;

CONCERNED about the fact that plastic explosives have been used to commit such terrorist acts;

WHEREAS the marking of such explosives for the purposes of detection would significantly contribute to preventing such unlawful acts;

RECOGNISING that in order to deter such unlawful acts an international instrument requiring States to take appropriate measures to ensure that plastic explosives are properly marked is urgently needed;

CONSIDERING UN Security Council Resolution 635 of 14 June 1989 and Resolution 44/29 of the United Nations General Assembly of 4 December 1989 calling on the Aviation Organization International Civil to intensify its work to establish an international regime of plastic or sheet explosive marking to detect its presence;

BEARING IN MIND the Resolution A27-8 adopted unanimously by the 27th session of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which supported with maximum priority and preponderant the preparation of a new instrument international legal framework for the placing of marks on plastic or sheet explosives to facilitate their detection;

NOTING with satisfaction the role played by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization in the preparation of the Convention, as well as its willingness to assume functions related to its implementation;

THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN AGREED:

Item I

For the purposes of this Convention

1. 'Explosives' means explosive products commonly known as 'plastic explosives', including explosives in the form of a flexible or elastic sheet, described in the Technical Annex to this Convention.

2. 'Detection agent' means the substance described in the Technical Annex to this Convention and which is inserted into an explosive in order to be able to detect it.

3. "Marking" means the introduction into the explosive of a detection agent in accordance with the Technical Annex to this Convention.

4. "Manufacturing" means any process, including reprocessing, that results in explosives.

5. "Duly authorised military devices" includes, without the list being exhaustive, cartridges, bombs, projectiles, mines, missiles, rockets, hollow loads, grenades and drillers manufactured exclusively for military or police purposes compliance with the laws and regulations of the State Party concerned.

6. 'producer State' means any State in the territory of which plastic explosives are manufactured.

Article II

Each State Party shall take the necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent the manufacture in its territory of unmarked explosives.

Article III

1. Each State Party shall take the necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent entry or exit from its territory of unmarked explosives.

2. The preceding paragraph shall not apply to posting for purposes other than incompatible with the objectives of this Convention, by the authorities of a State Party carrying out military or police functions, without marking that they are under the control of that State Party in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 4 (1).

Article IV

1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to exercise strict and effective control over the holding or transfer of the holding of unmarked explosives which have been manufactured or introduced into its territory before the entry into force of this Agreement. of this Convention in order to prevent its seizure or use for purposes incompatible with the objectives of this Convention.

2. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all stocks of the explosives referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which are not held by the authorities of that State carrying out military or police functions shall be destroy or consume for purposes which are not incompatible with the objectives of this Convention, are permanently marked or processed into inert substances within three years of the entry into force of this Convention in respect of that State.

3. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all stocks of the explosives referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article are held by the authorities of that State carrying out military or police functions and that they are not incorporated as an integral part of the duly authorised military artifacts are destroyed or consumed for purposes which are not incompatible with the objectives of this Convention, are marked or permanently transformed into substances (i) the Commission shall, within a period of 15 years after the entry into force of this Convention, that State.

4. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to destroy, as soon as possible, in its territory, the unmarked explosives discovered therein and which are not mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Article, other than the stocks of unmarked explosives held by the authorities of that State carrying out military or police functions and incorporated as an integral part of the duly authorised military devices, on the date of entry into force of the this Convention with respect to that State.

5. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to exercise strict and effective control over the holding and transfer of possession of the explosives referred to in paragraph II of Part 1 of the Technical Annex to this Convention. to avoid their seizure or use for purposes incompatible with the objectives of this Convention.

6. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to destroy as soon as possible, on its territory, unmarked explosives manufactured after the entry into force of this Convention in respect of that State which is not incorporated as specified in this Convention. in paragraph II (d) of Part 1 of the Technical Annex to this Convention and the explosives without marking that they no longer fall within any other paragraph of that paragraph II.

Article V

1. This Convention establishes the International Technical Commission on Explosives (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") consisting of no less than fifteen or more than 19 members appointed by the Council of the Civil Aviation Organization. International (hereinafter referred to as "the Council"), from among the candidates proposed by the States Parties to this Convention.

2. The members of the Commission shall be experts with a direct and solid experience in the manufacture or detection of explosives or explosives research.

3. The members of the Commission shall provide services for a period of three years and may be subject to a new appointment.

4. The sessions of the Commission shall be convened at least once a year at the Headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or at the places and dates determined or approved by the Council.

5. The Commission shall adopt its rules of procedure, subject to the approval of the Council.

Article VI

1. The Commission shall assess the development of the technique in the manufacture, marking and detection of explosives.

2. The Commission, through the Council, shall communicate its conclusions to the States Parties and to the international bodies concerned.

3. Whenever necessary, the Commission shall make recommendations to the Council for the amendment of the Technical Annex to this Convention. The Commission will seek to adopt by consensus its decisions on these recommendations. In the absence of consensus, the Commission shall adopt these decisions by a two-thirds majority of its members.

4. The Council may, on a recommendation from the Commission, propose to the States Parties amendments to the Technical Annex to this Convention.

Article VII

1. Each State Party may transmit to the Council its comments within 90 days of the date of notification of a proposal for an amendment to the Technical Annex to this Convention. The Council shall communicate these comments to the Commission as soon as possible for examination by the Council. The Council shall invite any State Party to comment or object to the proposed amendment to consult the Commission.

2. The Commission shall examine the views of the States Parties made in accordance with the preceding paragraph and report to the Council. The Council, after examining the report of the Commission, and taking into account the nature of the amendment and the comments of the States Parties, including the producer States, may propose the amendment to all States Parties for their adoption.

3. If the proposed amendment has not been objected to by five or more States Parties by a written notification to the Council within 90 days of the date of notification of the amendment by the Council, it shall be deemed to have been adopted, and shall enter into force one hundred and eighty days later or after any other period laid down in the proposed amendment for States Parties which have not expressly objected to it.

4. States Parties which have expressly objected to the proposed amendment may subsequently, by depositing an instrument of acceptance or approval, express consent to be bound by the amendment.

5. If five or more States Parties have objected to the proposed amendment, the Council shall forward the amendment to the Commission for further examination.

6. If the proposed amendment has not been adopted in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article, the Council may also convene a conference of all States Parties.

Article VIII

1. The States Parties shall, as far as possible, transmit to the Council information to assist the Commission in carrying out its tasks in accordance with Article VI, paragraph

2. The States Parties shall keep the Council informed of the measures they have taken to comply with the provisions of this Convention. The Council shall communicate such information to all States Parties and to the international bodies concerned.

Article IX

The Council, in cooperation with the relevant States Parties and international bodies, shall take appropriate measures to facilitate the implementation of this Convention, including the provision of technical assistance and measures for the exchange of information. information related to technical progress on marking and detection of explosives.

Item X

The Technical Annex to this Convention shall be an integral part of this Convention.

Article XI

1. Disputes arising between two or more States Parties with regard to the interpretation or application of this Convention, and which cannot be settled by negotiations, shall be subject to arbitration at the request of one of them. If, within six months from the date of the submission of the request for arbitration, the Parties have failed to agree on the form of the request, any of them may submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice. Justice, by means of an application filed in accordance with the Statute of the Court.

2. Any State Party may, at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of or accession to the Convention, declare that it is not considered bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph to any State Party which has made such a reservation.

3. Any State Party which has made the reservation provided for in the preceding paragraph may withdraw it at any time by notification to the Depositary.

Article XII

With the exception of Article XI, this Convention may not be subject to reservations.

Article XIII

1. This Convention shall be open for signature in Montreal on 1 March 1991 from the States participating in the International Conference on Air Law held in Montreal from 12 February to 1 March 1991. After 1 March 1991, the Convention shall be open to the signature of all States at the Headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal until its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article. States which do not sign this Convention may accede to it at any time.

2. This Convention shall be subject to the ratification, acceptance, approval or accession of the States. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited in the archives of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is hereby designated as Depositary. When depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, each State shall declare whether or not it is a producer State.

3. This Convention shall enter into force on the sixtieth day after the date of deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to the Depositary, provided that no less than five of those States have declared, in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, which are producer States. If thirty-five such instruments are deposited before five producing States deposit their instruments, this Convention shall enter into force on the sixtieth day after the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession of the fifth producer State.

4. For other States, this Convention shall enter into force 60 days after the date of deposit of its instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

5. As soon as this Convention enters into force, the Depositary shall register it in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with Article 83 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944).

Article XIV

The Depositary shall immediately notify all Signatories and States Parties:

1. Each signature of that Convention and the relevant date.

2. The deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the corresponding date, expressly indicating whether the State has declared to be a producer State.

3. The date of entry into force of this Convention.

4. The date of entry into force of any amendment to this Convention or its Technical Annex.

5. Any complaint made pursuant to Article XV, and

6. Any declaration made in accordance with paragraph 2 or Article XI.

Article XV

l. Any State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Depositary.

2. Denunciation shall take effect one hundred and eighty days after the date on which the Depositary receives the notification.

IN TESTIMONY OF WHICH the plenipotentiaries who subscribe, duly authorized by their governments to do so, sign this Convention.

FACT in Montreal, on the 1st of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one, in an original, composed of five authentic texts in the Spanish, French, English, Russian and Arabic languages.

TECHNICAL ANNEX

PART I

DESCRIPTION OF EXPLOSIVES

I. The explosives referred to in paragraph 1 of Article I of this Convention are those which:

a) Contain in their formula one or more high explosives, which in their pure form have a vapor pressure of less than 10-4 Pa at the temperature of 25oC;

b) Contain a plasticizer in your formula, and

c) They are, as a mixture, malleable or flexible at the normal room temperature.

II. The following explosives, even if they comply with the description of the explosives in paragraph 1 of this Part, shall not be considered as explosive as long as they are still being used for the purposes specified below or remain incorporated. as there is specified, namely explosives which:

(a) Be manufactured or are in limited quantities only for the purpose of using, with due authorisation, new or modified explosives research, development or testing;

(b) Be manufactured, or have, in limited quantities only for use, with due authorisation, for training in the detection of explosives and/or the development or testing of explosive detection equipment;

(c) Be manufactured, or have, in limited quantities only to be used, with due authorization, for the purposes of the auxiliary sciences of the administration of justice; or

(d) They are intended to be incorporated and incorporated as an integral part of the military artifacts duly authorized in the territory of the producing State, within three years of the entry into force of this Convention. of that State. The artifacts produced in this three-year period shall be considered as military artifacts duly authorized in accordance with the 4th paragraph of Article IV of this Convention.

III. In this Part:

"With due permission" means, in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2o, permitted in accordance with the laws and regulations of the State Party concerned; and

"High explosives" comprises, without this list being exhaustive, cyclotetramethylenetranitramine (HMX), pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and cyclotrimethylethinetramine (RDX).

Part II

DETECTION AGENTS

It is understood by detection agent any of the substances listed in the table below. The detection agents described in this table are intended to improve the detectability of the explosives by vapor detection means. In each case, the detection agent shall be inserted into the explosive in such a way that it is evenly distributed in the finished product. The minimum concentration of the detection agent in the finished product shall be at the time of manufacture, as shown in that table.

TABLE

Any explosive which, as a result of its ordinary formula, contains any of the designated detection agents at a concentration level equal to or greater than the required minimum shall be considered.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., January 3, 2002

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

(Fdo.) ANDRES PASTRANA ARANGO

The Foreign Minister,

(Fdo.) Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Approve the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Detection", made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991).

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Detection", made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March, a thousand Ninety-one hundred and ninety-one (1991), which is approved by Article 1 of this Law, will force the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

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

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., a ...

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

The Foreign Minister,

CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

The Minister of Transport,

ANDRES URIEL GALLEGO HENAO.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., January 3, 2002

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

(Fdo.) ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Foreign Minister,

(Fdo.) Carolina Barco Isakson.

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Approve the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Detection", made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991).

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Detection", made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March, a thousand Ninety-one hundred and ninety-one (1991), which is approved by Article 1 of this Law, will force the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

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

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

NANCY PATRICIA GUTIERREZ CASTANEDA.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

EMILIO RAMON OTERO DAJUD.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

OSCAR GROVE PALACIO.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

ANGELINO LIZANO RIVERA.

In compliance with the provisions of the third party of the Resolutive part of the Auto A-118/2007 of May 9, 2007, Expediente LAT-297, of the Plena Chamber of the Constitutional Court, which noted:

" (...)

Third. Once the vice referred to in the consideration of this providence has been remedied, the President of the Republic shall have the time limit set in the letter to sanction the respective bill, which shall keep the same number of the The law 1077 of July 31, 2006, "by means of which the Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purposes of detection", made in the Montreal, March 1, 1991, retaining its initial numbering and date.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Communicate and comply.

Execute, upon review of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to article 241-10 of the Political Constitution.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., 4 September 2007.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

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

CAMILO REYES RODRIGUEZ.

Bogotá, D. C., June 12, 2007

P1.1-1225-07

Doctor

ANGELINO LIZANO RIVERA

Secretary General

House of Representatives

Bogotá, D. C.

Rad. 1175

Respected doctor:

Carefully referred to you for the purposes of your competence the trade dated June 8, 2007 signed by Dr. Martha Victoria Sachica Méndez, General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, in reference: Expediente LAT-297-Auto A 118 2007, Communication Decision Auto.

Cordial greeting,

DANIEL FELIPE CASTRO MORA,

Private Secretary-Presidency.

Attachment: The enunciated.

Constitutional Court

General Secretariat

CC-DC 47

Bogotá, D. C., eight (8) of June, two thousand seven (2007)

Doctor

ALFREDO NECK BAUTE

President

Honorable House of Representatives

City

Reference: LAT-297-Auto-To 118 of 2007

Auto Decision Communication

Respected doctor:

On the date, in compliance with the provisions of Sala Plena A 118 of 2007, dated May 9 of the current year, this Secretariat is to put in its knowledge what has been decided in the providence in mention. For this purpose, it is attached to this communication of the text of Law 1077 of 2006, " by means of which the 'Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes' is approved, in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991) ".

Carefully,

MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ,

General Secretariat.

Attached:

-Copy of Auto A 118 of 2007 into nineteen (19) foles.

-Text of Law 1077 of 2006 in thirteen (13) folios.

JUDICIAL BRANCH

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Constitutionality Subject

LAT Radication-297 Date August 8, 2006

Magistrate ...

Case law 1077/06, "by means of which the Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes is approved", made in Montreal, on 1 March 1991.

Accus/or review rule ...

Republic Presidency

Actor ...

Cast Date ...

Doctor Alvaro Tafur Galvis

Date of distribution 09 August 2006

ACT 1077 OF 2006

(July 31)

By means of which the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the purposes of detection" is approved, made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991).

COLOMBIA CONGRESS

Seen the text of the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Detection, made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991), which to the letter says:

(To be transcribed: photocopy of the full text of the international instrument mentioned).

CONVENTION

On Plastic Explosives Marking for Detection Purposes

States Parties to the Present Convention,

CONSCIOUS of the repercussions of acts of terrorism on international security;

EXPRESSING deep concern over terrorist acts aimed at destroying aircraft, other means of transport and other targets;

CONCERNED about the fact that plastic explosives have been used to commit such terrorist acts;

WHEREAS the marking of such explosives for the purposes of detection would significantly contribute to preventing such unlawful acts;

RECOGNISING that in order to deter such unlawful acts an international instrument requiring States to take appropriate measures to ensure that plastic explosives are properly marked is urgently needed;

CONSIDERING UN Security Council Resolution 635 of 14 June 1989 and Resolution 44/29 of the United Nations General Assembly of 4 December 1989 calling on the Aviation Organization International Civil to intensify its work to establish an international regime of plastic or sheet explosive marking to detect its presence;

BEARING IN MIND the Resolution A27-8 adopted unanimously by the 27th session of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which supported with maximum priority and preponderant the preparation of a new instrument international legal framework for the placing of marks on plastic or sheet explosives to facilitate their detection;

NOTING with satisfaction the role played by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization in the preparation of the Convention, as well as its willingness to assume functions related to its implementation;

AGREE THE FOLLOWING:

ARTICLE I.

For the purposes of this Convention

1. 'Explosives' means explosive products commonly known as 'plastic explosives', including explosives in the form of a flexible or elastic sheet, described in the Technical Annex to this Convention.

2. 'Detection agent' means the substance described in the Technical Annex to this Convention and which is inserted into an explosive in order to be able to detect it.

3. "Marking" means the introduction into the explosive of a detection agent in accordance with the Technical Annex to this Convention.

4. "Manufacturing" means any process, including reprocessing, that results in explosives.

5. "Duly authorised military devices" includes, without the list being exhaustive, cartridges, bombs, projectiles, mines, missiles, rockets, hollow loads, grenades and drillers manufactured exclusively for military or police purposes compliance with the laws and regulations of the State Party concerned.

6. 'producer State' means any State in the territory of which plastic explosives are manufactured.

ARTICLE II.

Each State Party shall take the necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent the manufacture in its territory of unmarked explosives.

ARTICLE III.

1. Each State Party shall take the necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent entry or exit from its territory of unmarked explosives.

2. The preceding paragraph shall not apply to posting for purposes other than incompatible with the objectives of this Convention, by the authorities of a State Party carrying out military or police functions, without marking that they are under the control of that State Party in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 4 (1).

ARTICLE IV.

1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to exercise strict and effective control over the holding or transfer of the holding of unmarked explosives which have been manufactured or introduced into its territory before the entry into force of this Agreement. of this Convention in order to prevent its seizure or use for purposes incompatible with the objectives of this Convention.

2. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all stocks of the explosives referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which are not held by the authorities of that State carrying out military or police functions shall be destroy or consume for purposes which are not incompatible with the objectives of this Convention, are permanently marked or processed into inert substances within three years of the entry into force of this Convention in respect of that State.

3. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all stocks of the explosives referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article are held by the authorities of that State carrying out military or police functions and that they are not incorporated as an integral part of the duly authorised military artifacts are destroyed or consumed for purposes which are not incompatible with the objectives of this Convention, are marked or permanently transformed into substances (i) the Commission shall, within a period of 15 years after the entry into force of this Convention, that State.

4. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to destroy, as soon as possible, in its territory, the unmarked explosives discovered therein and which are not mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Article, other than the stocks of unmarked explosives held by the authorities of that State carrying out military or police functions and incorporated as an integral part of the duly authorised military devices, on the date of entry into force of the this Convention with respect to that State.

5. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to exercise strict and effective control over the holding and transfer of possession of the explosives referred to in paragraph II of Part 1 of the Technical Annex to this Convention. to avoid their seizure or use for purposes incompatible with the objectives of this Convention.

6. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to destroy as soon as possible, on its territory, unmarked explosives manufactured after the entry into force of this Convention in respect of that State which is not incorporated as specified in this Convention. in paragraph II (d) of Part 1 of the Technical Annex to this Convention and the explosives without marking that they no longer fall within any other paragraph of that paragraph II.

ARTICLE V.

1. This Convention establishes the International Technical Commission on Explosives (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") consisting of no less than fifteen or more than 19 members appointed by the Council of the Civil Aviation Organization. International (hereinafter referred to as "the Council"), from among the candidates proposed by the States Parties to this Convention.

2. The members of the Commission shall be experts with a direct and solid experience in the manufacture or detection of explosives or explosives research.

3. The members of the Commission shall provide services for a period of three years and may be subject to a new appointment.

4. The sessions of the Commission shall be convened at least once a year at the Headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or at the places and dates determined or approved by the Council.

5. The Commission shall adopt its rules of procedure, subject to the approval of the Council.

ARTICLE VI.

1. The Commission shall assess the development of the technique in the manufacture, marking and detection of explosives.

2. The Commission, through the Council, shall communicate its conclusions to the States Parties and to the international bodies concerned.

3. Whenever necessary, the Commission shall make recommendations to the Council for the amendment of the Technical Annex to this Convention. The Commission will seek to adopt by consensus its decisions on these recommendations. In the absence of consensus, the Commission shall adopt these decisions by a two-thirds majority of its members.

4. The Council may, on a recommendation from the Commission, propose to the States Parties amendments to the Technical Annex to this Convention.

ARTICLE VII.

1. Each State Party may transmit to the Council its comments within 90 days of the date of notification of a proposal for an amendment to the Technical Annex to this Convention. The Council shall communicate these comments to the Commission as soon as possible for examination by the Council. The Council shall invite any State Party to comment or object to the proposed amendment to consult the Commission.

2. The Commission shall examine the views of the States Parties made in accordance with the preceding paragraph and report to the Council. The Council, after examining the report of the Commission, and taking into account the nature of the amendment and the comments of the States Parties, including the producer States, may propose the amendment to all States Parties for their adoption.

3. If the proposed amendment has not been objected to by five or more States Parties by a written notification to the Council within 90 days of the date of notification of the amendment by the Council, it shall be deemed to have been adopted, and shall enter into force one hundred and eighty days later or after any other period laid down in the proposed amendment for States Parties which have not expressly objected to it.

4. States Parties which have expressly objected to the proposed amendment may subsequently, by depositing an instrument of acceptance or approval, express consent to be bound by the amendment.

5. If five or more States Parties have objected to the proposed amendment, the Council shall forward the amendment to the Commission for further examination.

6. If the proposed amendment has not been adopted in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article, the Council may also convene a conference of all States Parties.

ARTICLE VIII.

1. The States Parties shall, as far as possible, transmit to the Council information to assist the Commission in carrying out its tasks in accordance with Article VI, paragraph

2. The States Parties shall keep the Council informed of the measures they have taken to comply with the provisions of this Convention. The Council shall communicate this information to all States Parties and to the international bodies concerned.

ARTICLE IX.

The Council, in cooperation with the relevant States Parties and international bodies, shall take appropriate measures to facilitate the implementation of this Convention, including the provision of technical assistance and measures for the exchange of information. information related to technical progress on marking and detection of explosives.

ARTICLE X.

The Technical Annex to this Convention shall be an integral part of this Convention.

ARTICLE XI.

1. Disputes arising between two or more States Parties with regard to the interpretation or application of this Convention, and which cannot be settled by negotiations, shall be subject to arbitration at the request of one of them. If, within six months from the date of the submission of the request for arbitration, the Parties have failed to agree on the form of the request, any of them may submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice. Justice, by means of an application filed in accordance with the Statute of the Court.

2. Any State Party may, at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of or accession to the Convention, declare that it is not considered bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph to any State Party which has made such a reservation.

3. Any State Party which has made the reservation provided for in the preceding paragraph may withdraw it at any time by notification to the Depositary.

ARTICLE XII.

With the exception of Article XI, this Convention may not be subject to reservations.

ARTICLE XIII.

1. This Convention shall be open for signature in Montreal on 1 March 1991 from the States participating in the International Conference on Air Law held in Montreal from 12 February to 1 March 1991. After 1 March 1991, the Convention shall be open to the signature of all States at the Headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal until its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article. States which do not sign this Convention may accede to it at any time.

2. This Convention shall be subject to the ratification, acceptance, approval or accession of the States. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited in the archives of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is hereby designated as Depositary. When depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, each State shall declare whether or not it is a producer State.

3. This Convention shall enter into force on the sixtieth day after the date of deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to the Depositary, provided that no less than five of those States have declared, in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, which are producer States. If thirty-five such instruments are deposited before five producing States deposit their instruments, this Convention shall enter into force on the sixtieth day after the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession of the fifth producer State.

4. For other States, this Convention shall enter into force 60 days after the date of deposit of its instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

5. As soon as this Convention enters into force, the Depositary shall register it in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with Article 83 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944).

ARTICLE XIV.

The Depositary shall immediately notify all Signatories and States Parties:

1. Each signature of that Convention and the relevant date.

2. The deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the corresponding date, expressly indicating whether the State has declared to be a producer State.

3. The date of entry into force of this Convention.

4. The date of entry into force of any amendment to this Convention or its Technical Annex.

5. Any complaint made pursuant to Article XV, and

6. Any declaration made in accordance with paragraph 2 or Article XI.

ARTICLE XV.

l. Any State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Depositary.

2. Denunciation shall take effect one hundred and eighty days after the date on which the Depositary receives the notification.

IN TESTIMONY OF WHICH the plenipotentiaries who subscribe, duly authorized by their governments to do so, sign this Convention.

FACT in Montreal, on the 1st of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one, in an original, composed of five authentic texts in the Spanish, French, English, Russian and Arabic languages.

TECHNICAL ANNEX.

PART I.

DESCRIPTION OF EXPLOSIVES.

I. The explosives referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this Convention are those which:

a) Contain in their formula one or more high explosives, which in their pure form have a vapor pressure of less than 10-4 Pa at the temperature of 25oC;

b) Contain a plasticizer in your formula, and

c) They are, as a mixture, malleable or flexible at the normal room temperature.

II. The following explosives, even if they comply with the description of the explosives in paragraph I of this Part, shall not be considered as explosive as long as they are still being held or used for the purposes specified below or remain incorporated as there is specified, namely, explosives which:

(a) Be manufactured or are in limited quantities only for the purpose of using, with due authorisation, new or modified explosives research, development or testing;

(b) Be manufactured, or have, in limited quantities only for use, with due authorisation, for training in the detection of explosives and/or the development or testing of explosive detection equipment;

(c) Be manufactured, or have, in limited quantities only to be used, with due authorization, for the purposes of the auxiliary sciences of the administration of justice; or

(d) They are intended to be incorporated and incorporated as an integral part of the military artifacts duly authorized in the territory of the producing State, within three years of the entry into force of this Convention. of that State. The artifacts produced in this three-year period shall be considered as military artifacts duly authorized in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article IV of this Convention.

III. In this Part:

"With due permission" means, in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph II, permitted in accordance with the laws and regulations of the State Party concerned; and

"High explosives" comprises, without this list being exhaustive, cyclotetramethylenetranitramine (HMX), pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and cyclotrimethylethinetramine (RDX).

PART II.

DETECTION AGENTS.

It is understood by detection agent any of the substances listed in the table below. The detection agents described in this table are intended to improve the detectability of the explosives by vapor detection means. In each case, the detection agent shall be inserted into the explosive in such a way that it is evenly distributed in the finished product. The minimum concentration of the detection agent in the finished product shall be at the time of manufacture, as shown in that table.

TABLE

Any explosive which, as a result of its ordinary formula, contains any of the designated detection agents at a concentration level equal to or greater than the required minimum shall be considered.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., January 3, 2002

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

(Fdo.) ANDRES PASTRANA ARANGO

The Foreign Minister,

(Fdo.) Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Approve the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Detection", made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991).

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Detection", made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March, a thousand Ninety-one hundred and ninety-one (1991), which is approved by Article 1 of this Law, will force the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

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

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., a ...

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

The Foreign Minister,

CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

The Minister of Transport,

ANDRES URIEL GALLEGO HENAO.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., January 3, 2002

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

(Fdo.) ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Foreign Minister,

(Fdo.) Carolina Barco Isakson.

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Approve the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Detection", made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991).

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purposes of Detection", made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March, a thousand Ninety-one hundred and ninety-one (1991), which is approved by Article 1 of this Law, will force the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

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

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

BARBERI ' S CLAUDIA BLUM.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

EMILIO RAMON OTERO DAJUD.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Full Room

Auto A-118/2007

Reference: Expedient L.A.T. -297

Constitutional Review of Law 1077 2006 "By means of which the 'Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes'is approved, Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991) ".

Magistrate Rapporteur: Alvaro Tafur Galvis

Bogotá, D. C., nine (9) May two thousand seven (2007).

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

AUTO

I. BACKGROUND

The "Convention on the Markup of Plastic Explosives for Detection Purposes", subscribed in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991), by The then Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary in Canada, Dr. German Montoya Velez, by virtue of the Full Powers to be conferred by Mr. President Dr. Cesar Gaviria Trujillo, on August 16, 1991, according to the faculty contained in article 189 numeral 2 of the Political Constitution.

For his part, the President of the Republic, Dr. Andres Pastrana Arango, gave the corresponding executive approval to the Convention, three (3) of January 2002, and ordered it to be submitted to the consideration of the Congress of the Republic.

Congress issued Law 831 2003, approved by the Convention under study, sanctioned by the President of the Republic on July 10, 2003 and published in the Official Journal 45.248 of July 14, 2003. The Court by Judgment C-309 of March 31, 2004, declared inexéquilible, por vices de forma, la Ley 831 de 2003, as a result of the fact that in the Senate of the Republic during its The term of eight days required in article 160 of the Political Charter has been concluded, in relation to the lapse that must mediate between the approval of the plan in the respective Constitutional Commission and their deliberation and vote in Plenary and because the respective bill was subject to five debates, without having reopened the debate in accordance with the applicable regulatory standards.

President of the Republic, Dr. Alvaro Uribe Velez, once again gave the corresponding executive approval and ordered once again to submit the Convention referred to the Congress of the Republic, which approved the Law 1077 from 2006 sub browse.

The Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, allego to this Corporation, on August 8, 2006, authentic photocopy of Law 1077 of 2006 "By means of which the 'Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes', made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991).

By order of August 18, 2006, in order to exercise the control of constitutionality that the numeral 10 of article 241 of the Political Constitution orders, the examination of the Convention alluded to and the law that approves it. In the same car the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Trade, Industry and Tourism and of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development were officiated, to send to this Corporation the antecedents of the Convention review, as well as the pronouncement regarding the constitutionality of the same. Likewise, it was ordered to transfer to the Attorney General of the Nation in order to render the concept of rigor. The Secretaries General of the Senate of the Republic, the House of Representatives, and the Permanent Constitutional Committees of both Legislative Chambers were also officiated to send a copy of the Congress ' Gacetas. the project that culminated with the issuance of the sub-examine law and the papers and reports of presentation for the respective constitutional debates was published; likewise, to certify regarding the development of the debates that were carried out for the discussion and approval of the project, specifying the date on which it was approved, the quorum and the vote obtained finally as well as the fulfillment of the requirement on the announcement of the discussion and vote established in the article 160 above.

II. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSIDERATIONS

1. The competence and control object

In harmony with the provisions of Article 241 numeral 10 of the Political Constitution, it is up to the Court to examine the constitutionality of international treaties and laws. approval of the same. The Court has consistently affirmed that the aforementioned control of constitutionality, comprises the totality of the content of those legal acts, both in its formal and substantive aspects(1). In this order, the Court is ruled exclusively in relation to the examination of the constitutionality of Law 1077 of 2006 "By means of which the Convention on the Dialling of plastic explosives for detection purposes ', made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991) ", for its formal aspects, in respect of which it has identified, as it happens to This is a vice that must be remedied by the Congress of the Republic.

2. Analysis of the constitutionality of Law 1077 of 2006 for its formal aspects

2.1. Verification of the legislative procedure followed for the issuance of Law 1077 of 2006

Based on the certifications referred to the Court by the Senate of the Republic and the House of Representatives, as well as in the legislative record and in the minutes published in the Congressional Gacts the Republic, it was possible to determine that the procedure set forth in that Corporation for the issue of Law No 1077 of 2006, " By means of which the 'Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes'approved, made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991), " the following:

2.1.1. The bill along with the explanatory memorandum was presented to the Senate of the Republic by the National Government through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Carolina Barco, and the Minister of Transport, Dr. Andres Uriel Gallego Henao, on April 4, 2005, and was based under the number 249 of 2005-Senate-and published in the Congress Gazette Year XIV, No 149 of Monday, April 11, 2005 (pp. 34 to 39) (Folios 143 to 148, Test Notebook 2).

2.1.2. This project, with its corresponding explanatory statement, was distributed to the Second Constitutional Committee of the Senate, where the first debate was held, with the senators Jimmy Chamorro Cruz and Efren Felix Tarapos Cuaical being the speakers. The paper published in the Gazette of Congress number 341 of Thursday, June 9, 2005 (pp. 1 to 2) (Folios 158 to 159, Evidence 2) was discussed and approved with a deliberative and decision-making quorum of twelve (12) votes in favour and none against the 13 (13) members of the Commission, in session of the sixteen (16) June 2005 as stated in Act number 38 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette number 852 of December 2, 2005 (pp. 2 and 3) (Folios 5 to 6 of the Booklet of Tests 8) and according to certification of the twenty-four (24) of August 2006, issued by the Secretary General of the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the Senate of the Republic (Folio 1, Booklet of Evidence 8).

Now, as stated in Minutes number 37 of the ordinary session of the fifteen (15) of June 2005 published in the Congress Gazette number 851 of December 2, 2005 (pp. 2 and 3) (Folios 5 to 6 Notebook 8), and according to the certification of the twenty-four (24) of August 2006, issued by the Secretary General of the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the Senate of the Republic (Folio 1, Booklet of Tests 8), within the bills whose vote was announced by the Secretariat of the Corporation for the session of the sixteen (16) of June 2005 was the Bill 249 of 2005-Senate-, "By means of which the Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes". In this way, the Court finds that in this case the mandate contained in the last paragraph of article 160 was fulfilled.

2.1.3. The plenary of the Senate of the Republic advanced the second debate based on the paper published in the Congress Gazette number 460 on Monday 1 August 2005 (pp. 7 and 8) (Folios 156 to 157, Booklet of Tests 2) being speakers Jimmy Chamorro Cruz and Efren Felix Tarathen Cuaical. The draft was approved in ordinary session of the five (5) October 2005 with a deliberative and decision-making quorum of ninety-seven (97) of the one hundred and two (102) Senators that make up the plenary, as stated in the Minutes number 18 of the same date published in Congress Gazette number 762 of Wednesday, November 2, 2005 (pp. 10 and 11), (Folios 187 to 188, Booklet of Evidence 2) and according to the certification of the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic of thirty-one (31) of August 2006. (Folio 1, Test Notebook 2).

Now, as stated in Act number 17 of the ordinary session of the four (4) October 2005 published in the Congress Gazette number 794 of Friday, November 4, 2005 (p. 41) (Folio 42, Evidence Notebook 2), and as certified by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic of thirty-one (31) August 2006 (Folio 1, Evidence 2), within the bills whose vote was announced by the Senate. Secretary of the Corporation for the session of the five (5) October 2005 was the Bill 249 of 2005-Senate-, "By means of which the Convention on the marking of plastic explosives is approved for the purpose of detection". In this case, the Court notes that in this case, the mandate contained in the last paragraph of article 160 constitutional was also fulfilled.

2.1.4. Once the bill was filed in the House of Representatives under the number 178 of 2005-the House-the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission brought forward the first debate based on the paper published in the Gazette of the Congress number 188 of Monday, May 15, 2006 (p. 2) (Folio 97, Evidence Notebook 1), with the rapporteur Luis Alberto Monsalvo G. This project was discussed and approved with the assistance of seventeen (17) Representatives, unanimously, in an ordinary session of thirty (30) May 2006, as stated in Act number 23 of thirty (30) May 2006 of the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission published in the Congress Gazette number 340 of September 4, 2006 (pp. 5 and 6) (Folios 18 to 19 of Test Notebook 11).

Now, as stated in Act number 01 of the ordinary session of seventeen (17) May 2006 published in the Congress Gazette number 333 of the first (1o) of September 2006 (p. 12) (Folio 13, Evidence Notebook 7), and as certified by the Secretary-General of the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives issued on 28 September 2006 (Folio 1 Booklet of Evidence 7), within of the bills whose vote was announced by the Secretariat of the Corporation for the session of the thirty (30) of May 2006 was the Bill 178 of 2005-House-and 249 of 2005-Senate-, "By means of which approves the Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes" In this case, the Court notes that in this case, the mandate contained in the last paragraph of article 160 constitutional was also fulfilled.

2.1.5. The plenary of the House of Representatives advanced the second debate of the bill, based on the paper published in the Congress Gazette number 160 of Monday, June 5, 2006 (pp. 11 and 12) (Folios 180 to 181, Test Notebook 10), with the rapporteur Luis Alberto Monsalvo G. said presentation was discussed and approved in plenary session of seven (7) June 2006 by a majority of the present one hundred and fifty three (153) Representatives of the Corporation, as stated in Act No. 234 of the same date published in the Congress Gazette number 220 of Tuesday twenty-seven (27) June 2006 (pp. 14 and 15) (Folios 32 and 33, Test Notebook 10) and according to certification issued by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives of the seven (7) June 2006 (Folio 3 Test Notebook 10).

Now, as stated in Act No. 233 of the ordinary session of the six (6) June 2006 published in the Congress Gazette number 228 of Wednesday, July 12, 2006, (pp. 27 and 28), (Folios 70 to 71 Test Notebook 10), and according to certification issued by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives of the twenty-four (24) of August 2006 (Folio 3 Booklet of Evidence 10), within the bills whose The vote was announced by the Secretariat of the Corporation for the session seven (7) of June 2006, it figured the Bill 178 of 2005-House-and 249 of 2005-Senate-, "By means of which the Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes". In this case, the Court notes that in this case, the mandate contained in the last paragraph of article 160 constitutional was also fulfilled.

2.1.6. The President of the Republic, Dr. Alvaro Uribe Vélez sanctioned the approval law of the Convention sub examine, the thirty one (31) of July 2006, under the number 1077 and sent it to this Corporation, being received On the eight (8) August of the year two thousand six (2006), that is, within the term foreseen in article 241-10 of the Political Constitution for review.

2.1.7. Taking into account the previous count, the Court finds that the procedure observed for the approval of the sub-examination law, has been fulfilled in accordance with the requirements laid down in the Political Constitution, with the exception that is more signal. In effect, the bill initiated its procedure in the Senate of the Republic as ordered by the last paragraph of article 154 Superior; it complied with the requirements referred to in article 157 constitutional regarding i) the initial publication of the project, ii) the approval in the Permanent Constitutional Commission II and in the Plenary of each Chamber, and iii) the sanction by the Government. Likewise, the reports of the papers required by the superior article 160 were presented in the Permanent Commissions of each Chamber, in the same way that it was respected in the Senate of the Republic, the time limit established therein that must mediate between the first and second debate in each Chamber as well as between the approval of the plan in one of them and the initiation of the debate in the other Corporation. In the same way it was fulfilled in Commissions and in Plenary with the requirement stated in the same article from the approval of the Legislative Act number 01 of 2003 in relation to the previous announcement that the plan would be subject to discussion and voting. Finally being sanctioned by the President of the Republic, also within the constitutional term.

Court notes that, as the Attorney General of the Nation (2) puts it, in the House of Representatives, the 8-day deadline that must mediate between the first and the second debate as set out in the article 160 higher.

3. Failure to comply with the requirement stated in the first paragraph of article 160 above the span of not less than eight days to mediate between the first and second debate in each Chamber.

According to the first paragraph of Article 160 of the Political Charter, " Between the first and the second debate must mediate a lapse of not less than eight days, and between the The approval of the project in one of the chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other shall be at least 15 days. "

As the Court reminded the Court of the will of the Constituent Assembly in setting the deadline set in the precise constitutional standard, it was to enhance the sense of the debate, and to ensure a period of reflection for the members of the committees and the plenary. they can meditate on the approved project, and prepare themselves for the corresponding debate, which involves the exposition of diverse ideas, criteria and concepts, such as the serious and respectful confrontation between them; the examination of the different possibilities and the collective, reasoned and well-founded consideration of the impact of the project to be discussed (3).

It should be noted that this Corporation has indicated that the deadlines provided for in Article 160 of the Superior Text should be counted on common and non-business days. In this regard the Corporation explained:

" It is to be clarified that as this Court has established it(4), the 8 days that the Constitution establishes, they do not necessarily refer to working days, since the Congress can be validly sessionable. on any day within the week, as long as it is within a legislature or outside of the legislature, at events that are called by the Government "(5).

However, in the view of this Corporation, that term must be fully passed, that is, that " each and every one of the days that compose it must be complete days, so the dates in which the debates take place in the cameras, cannot be included within the count of the term "(6).

In this sense, the Court has specified that " theof the Charter is to be a pertory, in the sense that the terms referred to must elapse in full, that is, without subtracting any of the days required by the constitutional provision. It is not in vain that he must mediate in the first case a period of 'no less than eight days' and, in the second case, 'at least fifteen days must elapse'. These are minimum spaces of time, so that if the votes occur without fully accounting for them, the corresponding acts lack validity and effects "(7).

That is, that these terms must be fully complied with, and as such must elapse in full, without subtracting any of the days laid down in the constitutional regulations, which means that each and every one of the days that compose them must be complete, without taking into account the dates in which the debates took place in the committees or plenary sessions of each Chamber.

It is now clear that in the present case the Bill of Law No. 178 of 2005 House, 249 of 2005 Senate, took up the first debate in the House of Representatives on May 30, 2006, day in which it was approved in the Second Commission Constitutional, while the second debate took place on 7 2006, in which it was approved by the Plenary of the House of Representatives. That is, of course, the term of reflection alluded to, in this case, was only 7 days, the term is less than the provisions of the article 160 above.

For the Court it is clear then the configuration in the present case of a procedural vice as to how clearly the lapse stated expressly by article 160 was not respected. above.

4. The subsanable character in the present case of the identified vice

Now, in the face of the procedural vice identified, it must be remembered that according to settled case law (8) not all violations of a rule on the formation of laws, contained in the Constitution or in the Rules of Congress, ineluctably the invalidity of the law and its declaration of unconstitutionality.

In this regard, it is necessary to reiterate that the constitutional rules on the formation of laws aimed at preserving the essential content of the institutional system designed by the Constituent Assembly, as well as ensuring that the debate in Congress is broad, transparent and rational (9), they do not have a value in themselves and must be interpreted teleologically in the service of the material values that these rules intend to carry out (arts. 1o, 2o and 228 of the Constitution) (10).

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

This paragraph expressly states that " when the Court finds subsable procedural defects in the formation of the act subject to its control, it shall order the authority to return it to the authority that profiedit so that, if possible, amend the observed defect ". Text that was developed by Decree-Law 2067 of 1991 which in its article 45 states the following:

Article 45. When the Court finds subsable procedural defects in the formation of the act subject to its control, it will order the court to return it to the authority that profferred it to within the term to be set by the Court, if possible, amend the defect observed. The Court will decide on the constitutionality of the act, and the court will decide on the constitutionality of the act.

That term may not be greater than thirty days from the time the authority is able to subsate it.

In the same sense, article 202 of Law 5th of 1992 states:

Article 202. Vicians Subsanables. When the Constitutional Court finds, in the formation of the law or of the legislative act, vices of subsable procedure, it will order to return the bill, the law or the legislative act to the Legislative Chambers so that, if possible, it will amend the Defect observed. This event will give priority to the Order of the Day. The vice will be subsated within thirty (30) days following its return, it will be referred to the same Court so that it decides definitively on its exilibility.

Such a possibility, as this Corporation has pointed out, (11) is not only a realization of the principle of the conservation of the law, but also a manifestation of the democratic principle to the extent that allows the Congress, the representative body par excellence, to be directly responsible for the possible constitutional and constitutional irons in which it has been committed. However, this possibility must be exercised in a reasonable manner, that is, it cannot involve the full repetition of the legislative procedure, since one thing is a vice in the procedure, and another very different is the absence of a procedure. as such(12).

In the case of Case C-737 of 2001 (13), where the Court systematized the conditions that allowed a vice in the legislative formation process to be subsable, the following must be stated:

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

33. In accordance with the above, the principle of instrumentality of forms, expressly enshrined in Article 228 of the Charter, implies that the finding that an irregularity occurred in the It is not inevitable that the constitutional judge should always withdraw it from the law. It is necessary that, in advance, the judge examine (i) whether that defect is of sufficient entity to constitute a vice liable to affect the validity of the law; (ii) in case the irregularity represents a vice, the Court must study whether or not there was a validation of the aforementioned vice during the procedure itself; (iii) if the vice was not validated, the Court should analyze whether it is possible to return the law to the Congress and the President to remedy the defect observed; and (iv) if none of the above is presented, the Court should determine whether it is possible for the Court to the same subsane, in its pronouncement, the detected vice, in accordance with the guidelines outlined above, and always respecting the principle of reasonableness "(14).

In application of such criteria the Court in different providences has pointed out that such possibility exists in relation to the case of laws approving treaties, maxime by the nature of the and the characteristics of the control of constitutionality to which they are subjected is impossible the ratification of the respective international instrument until the exequability of the same and of its approval law is declared by the Cut. It has also shown that if certain conditions are given, the vice-healing of vice can be carried out without altering the principles and rules of the legislative function or the mandates contained in the Constitution on the approval of the bills, and no other procedural requirements such as the one set out in the article 162 above.

So in the 2005 Auto 088 the Court expressed the following:

" Now, the Court considers that the criteria outlined in the decisions referred to are applicable in the present case, especially when it comes to an approved law of treaty that by its nature and the characteristics of the constitutionality control to which they are submitted (art. 241-8)(15) it is impossible to ratify the respective international instrument until the exhibility of the instrument and its approval law are declared by the Court.

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

To this end, it should be added that for the improvement of the vice in which it was incurred, it is not necessary to redo the legislative process in its entirety while the possibility of sanitation does not imply, contrary to what it says the Attorney General of the Nation, the unawareness of other procedural requirements such as the one set out in the article 162 above.

In this regard, it should be specified that the time limit referred to in Article 162 above according to which 'no draft law may be considered in more than two legislatures', It is only a predictor of the procedure given by the Congress, but not of the automatic review entrusted to the Constitutional Court.

Thus, given that the procedure to be dealt with for the vice-healing of the identified vice is a consequence of the exercise of the control carried out by the Court (art. 241-10), it cannot be understood that in these circumstances the requirement that the procedure be taken up in maximum two legislatures (art. 162 C. P.), since this one preaches the action of the legislator-who in this case effectively dealt with and voted on the bill within that period as is clear from the legislative file analyzed by the Court-but not the consequences that they are derived from the exercise of the control of constitutionality, which are governed by the superior and legal mandates that allow the consolidation of the procedural vices (paragraph of the article 241 C. P., article 202 of the 5th of 1992 and article 45 of Decree 2067 of 1991)(16).

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

Could be argued, however, that in these circumstances it is the configuration of a 'competition vice' as long as the mandate contained in the article 149 higher according to which ' Every meeting of members of Congress who, for the purpose of exercising their own functions of the legislative branch of public power, takes place outside the conditions (a) constitutional, shall not be valid; and the acts which it carries out may not have any effect, and the deliberations, shall be sanctioned in accordance with the laws.

In this regard the Court draws attention to the fact that the mandate referred to in that article must be interpreted within the specific context of the chapter of the Constitution in which it is inserted, namely the Chapter 2 of Title VI of the Constitution on the Legislative Branch, whose articles allude to the general conditions of assembly and functioning of Congress.(17)

Chapter that has a scope that must necessarily be differentiated from Chapter 3 of the same Title VI of the Constitution in which the rules of procedure for the processing of laws are specifically established.

It should be added that if the interpretation of the scope of the article 142 is accepted, any procedural vice in the formation of the a law of those mentioned in Chapter 3 of Title VI of the Constitution, even those that in the established case law of the Corporation have been identified as subsables-would set up a vice of competition that would necessarily invalidate the action of the legislator as it would render it ineffective. Conclusion that all lights are unreasonable "(18).

Now, it is particularly relevant to the present case to recall that the first sentence which admitted the subsability of a procedural vice in the matter of approved treaty laws was Judgment C- 607 of 1992(19). It was established in it that the vice consisting of omitting the requirement to pass a certain number of days between the debates in the Chambers, was subsanable (20).

As an example, it should be recalled that in the process of Law 178 of 1994, "By means of which the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property is approved," Paris on March 20, 1883, with the respective subsequent revisions", the Court found that the term of 8 full days that must elapse between debates to which the article" is referred " was not respected. href="policy_constitution_1991_pr005.html#160"> 160-1. The Court, however, considered that it was a vice subsable and thus returned to Congress the law to be passed in the second debate in the House of Representatives, in accordance with the Political Charter (21).

It should be noted, however, that, as was recalled in Point I of this providence, in Judgment C-309 of 2004 (22) the Court found inexequable, by way of form, Law 831 of 2003 "by means of which the 'Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the End of Detection' is approved, made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991)", among other reasons (23) because during the procedure of the same one did not abide by the term of eight days required in the Article 160 of the Political Charter, in relation to the lapse that must mediate between the approval of the bill in the respective Constitutional Commission and its deliberation and vote in Plenary. Identical decision had taken the Court in Judgment C-120 of 2004 (24) where it stated the inexequability of the Act 830 of 2003 " By means of which the Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, made in Rome, ten (10) March of one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight (1988) and the Protocol for the Suppression of Illicit Acts against the Security of the Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, made in Rome on ten (10) March thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight (1988) ", but this, in both cases, in relation to the failure to comply with the requirement alluded to during the debates in the Senate of the Republic -highlights the Court-.

In this respect, it should be specified that in the matter of the passage of bills approving the treaties the Court has warned that it is relevant for the analysis on the possibility to remedy or not a vice of procedure, the stage of the procedure in which and specifically whether the vice occurred in the debates in the Senate of the Republic or in the House of Representatives.

Thus for example in relation to the non-compliance with the announcements prior to the discussion and vote of the projects by the Commissions and the Plenaries established by article 8o of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 in the Judgment C- 241 of 2006 (25) the Court specified that " while the omission of the requirement of Article 8 of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 is, in principle, subsanable, such a possibility does not occur if the serious irregularities in the announcement is presented in the first of the debates of the entire procedure of approval of the law. " i_aj"> Subsequently in 2006 C-576 Statement(26) the Court specified that "a failure to comply with the requirement of the prior announcement set forth in the article 160 C. P. until the vote in the Senate Plenary is considered to be a vice in the insubsainable legislative procedure that will trigger the declaration of inexequibility of the approval of a law international treaty. On the other hand, a lack of compliance with the aforementioned requirement at a time after the vote in the Senate Plenary is considered an unsanitary vice that will trigger the return of the approval of an international treaty to the Congress to remedy the vice and continue its process from the moment it occurred, when the other conditions of subsability are. Criterion that I reiterate in Statement C-649 of 2006(27), where he specified that " The essential condition of subsability, established in the aforementioned judgment, is that the Senate has been pronounced in such a way that the chamber where by constitutional mandate the procedure of the bills of approval of a treaty has to be initiated has fully expressed its will ".

In harmony with the stated criteria, in the present case the Court finds that i) the identified vice-consistent with the ignorance of the first paragraph of article 160 above- (ii) it is the only procedural vice identified by the Court in connection with the procedure of the aforementioned bill, iii) without altering the law. the principles and rules of the legislative function and the mandates contained in the Constitution on the approval of bills, in particular the principle of consistency, and without the unknown other procedural requirements such as the one established in the article 162 , you can roll back the performance to amend the failure in the procedure that was incurred in the present case-so it is to be concluded that the identified vice is subsanable and allows, as a consequence, not to the declaration of inexequability of Law 1077 of 2006, " By means of which the 'Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes' is approved, made in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991) ", but its return to the Plenary of the House of Representatives to reprocess the respective procedure.

In that order of ideas, a 30-day term will be granted, counted from the notification of this car in the Chair of the House of Representatives, so that the discussion and vote will be announced again by the Plenary of the House of Representatives. Representatives of the paper for the second debate of Bill 178 of 2005-House-and 249 of 2005-Senate-The Plenary of the House of Representatives will have until December 16, 2007 to fulfill the later stages of the process legislative.

Once this procedure has been made, the President of the Republic will have the deadline set in the Charter to sanction the respective bill, which must keep the same number of the approved law that is returned.

Once the previous procedure has been completed, the President of the Congress will refer to the Court the Law 1077 of 2006, to decide definitively on his exequability.

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

RESOLVES:

First. By General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, return to the Presidency of the House of Representatives Law 1077 of 2006 " By means of which the ' Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes ', done in Montreal, the first (1o) of March of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-one (1991) ", in order to process the sanitation of the procedure vice detected in this providence.

Second. Within 30 days of the notification of this order in the Presidency the House of Representatives will have to announce again the discussion and vote by the Plenary of the House of Representatives of the presentation for second debate Bill 178 of 2005-House-and 249 of 2005-Senate-The Plenary of the House of Representatives will have until December 16, 2007 to fulfill the later stages of the legislative process.

Third. Once the vice referred to in the consideration of this providence has been remedied, the President of the Republic will have the deadline set in the Charter to sanction the respective bill, which will have to keep the same number of the approving law that is returned.

Fourth. Once the previous procedure has been completed, the President of the Congress will refer to the Court the Law 1077 of 2006, to decide definitively on his exequability.

Rodrigo Escobar Gil, President; Jaime Araujo Renteria (with salvage vote); Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, Jaime Cordoba Trivino, Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Alvaro Tafur Galvis, Clara Ines Vargas Hernández, Magistrates; Martha V. Sachica of Moncaleano, General Secretariat.

***

1. According to Judgment C-468 of 1997, this control is characterized by being (i) prior to the improvement of the treaty, but after the approval of the Congress and the governmental sanction; (ii) automatic, since it must be sent directly by the President of the Republic to the Constitutional Court within six days of the government sanction; (iii) integral, to the extent that the Court should analyze both the formal aspects and the materials of the law and the treaty, confronting them with all the constitutional text; (iv) has a force of thing (v) is a sine qua non for the ratification of the relevant agreement; and (vi) is a preventive function, as its purpose is to guarantee both the supremacy of the Constitution and the fulfilment of the commitments The Colombian State. As for the control over procedural defects that the Court exercises over international treaties and the laws that approve them, as prescribed in article 241 numeral 10 Superior, this is directed both to examine the validity of the representation of the Colombian State in the processes of negotiation and celebration of the instrument and the competence of the officials in the negotiation and signing of the treaty, like the fulfillment of the rules on the formation of the approval law in the Congress. See in the same sense, among many others, the Sentences C-400/98 M. P. Alejandro Martínez Caballero; C-834/01 M. P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra; C-363/00, and C-718/04 M. P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis; and C-333/05 M. P. Jaime Córdoba Trivino.

2. The Attorney General of the Nation in the concept rendered in the present process warns in effect that " Bill No. 178 of 2005 House, 249 of 2005 Senate, took up the first debate in the House of Representatives on the day 30 May 2006, the day on which it was approved, and the second debate was discussed and approved on 7 June 2006, according to the background above. Based on these dates and in accordance with the case-law development, the days 30 and 7, cannot be taken into account for the computation of the 8 days of the article 160 of the Political Constitution, so the term of reflection, in this case, was only 7 days, the term is less than the provisions of the aforementioned constitutional norm ". Also states " that in the procedure of Law 1077 of 2006, a vice was incurred in an insubsainable form, because they did not meet the constitutional requirements related to the minimum number of days to be observed among the corresponding debates, which leads to the declaration of the inexilibility of the aforementioned law ". In addition, the Attorney General's Office "attention to the lack of care and rigorousness of the Congress of the Republic in the procedure of Law 1077 of 2006, because in Judgment C- 309 of 2004, it was declared inexequable by Law 831 of 2003, which had adopted the Convention which was the subject of this analysis, for the same reasons that are invoked to request its inexilibility, this is, the non-compliance of the 8-day term, referred to in the article 160 higher ".

3. See among other the Sentences C-607/92 M. P. Alejandro Martínez Caballero, C-203 of 1995 and C-222 of 1997 M. P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo, C- 309/04 M. P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil, C-1153/05 M. P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra. Thus in Judgment C-203 of 1995 reiterated in Judgment C-309 of 2004 the Court noted: " (...) Article 160 of the The constitution that between the first and the second debate, in the process of any project, must mediate a lapse of not less than eight days and that between the approval of a plan in one of the chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other, they must at least 15 days elapse. Such terms have been enshrined for the purpose of ensuring that members of Congress, before voting on the projects put to their consideration, have time to study their content and assess their appropriateness, so that the decision that Each one adopts does not obey the thoughtless impulse of the 'pupil' but the rational persuasion around the scope of the initiative. This gives importance and seriousness to the vote which takes place in successive legislative bodies. It is also intended that public opinion, thanks to the dissemination of the texts already approved during the past debates, will be expressed on them and contribute to the best illustration and the broadest analysis of the Congress by virtue of a greater democratic participation ".

4. In Judgment C-203/95, the Court ruled on how the days in the legislative procedure should be understood as follows: " The days that must elapse between the first and the second debate and between the approval of the bill in one chamber and the initiation of the debate in the other should not necessarily be skilful, since the consideration of the texts that They will have to be voted on in non-working time, according to the availability of each congressman, while in the cases mentioned, even in the case of common days, the citizenry can express themselves ". (M. P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo) This interpretation has been retaken on multiple occasions in the Sentences C-510/96, C-708/96, C-562/97, C- 565/97, C-702/99 among others.

5. Statement C-1153/05 M. P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra.

6. C-510 statement from 1996. M. P. Vladimiro Naranjo Mesa.

7. See Judgment C-203 of 1995 M. P. José Gregorio Hernández Galindo reiterated in Judgment C-309 of 2004 M. P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil.

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

9. In this regard, see Judgment C-737 of 2001 M. P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett.

10.See Judgment C-872/02 M. P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett A.V. of the Magistrates Alfredo Beltrán Sierrra and Jaime Araujo Renteria.

11. See among others the Sentences C-500 of 2001, M. P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis, C-579 of 2001, M. P. Eduardo Montealegre, with AV: Manuel José Cepeda and Eduardo Montealegre Lynett, relative to vices subsables; C-737 of 2001, M. P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett and C-760 of 2001, M. P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa and Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra.

12. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-760 of 2001, M. P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa and Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, AV: Jaime Araujo Renteria on the non-existence of certain vices; SV Rodrigo Escobar Gil, on the consequences of certain vices detected and partial SV of Clara Inés Vargas Hernández, in relation to the effect of the entire law on the vices detected in its processing. See also Judgment C-1248 of 2001, M. P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil, where the Court stated that it is not constitutionally valid to present as "a vice-healing of a vice in the legislative procedure" that in reality would be tantamount to carrying out stages of the law-forming process that did not arise.

13. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-737 of 2001, M. P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett, where the Court analyzes the process of passing the laws, the principle of instrumentality of the forms, the rule of unity of matter and the scope of the Conciliation Committees. SV partial alfredo Beltrán Sierra, on the deferred effects of inexubiblity failures; SV: Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, on principle of identity, SV: Clara Inés Vargas Hernández, on principle of identity.

14. Judgment C-737 of 2001 M. P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett. In the same sense, see Judgment C- 872 of 2002 M. P. Eduardo Montealegre Lynett A.V. of the Magistrates Alfredo Beltrán Sierra and Jaime Araujo Renteria.

15. ARTICLE 241. The Constitutional Court is entrusted with the preservation of the integrity and supremacy of the Constitution, in the strict and precise terms of this article. To this end, it shall fulfil the following tasks: (...) 10. To decide definitively on the exilibility of international treaties and the laws that approve them. To this end, the Government will forward them to the Court, within six days of the law being passed. Any citizen may intervene to defend or challenge his constitutionality. If the Court declares them constitutional, the government may carry out the exchange of letters; otherwise they will not be ratified. Where one or more of the rules of a multilateral treaty are declared inexorably by the Constitutional Court, the President of the Republic may only express consent by making a corresponding reservation.

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