Through Which The "convention On The Marking Of Plastic Explosives For The Purpose Of Detection" Made In Montreal, The First (1St.) March In 1991 (1991) Is Approved

Original Language Title: Por medio de la cual se aprueba el "Convenio sobre la Marcación de Explosivos Plásticos para los fines de detección", hecho en Montreal, el primero (1o.) de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y uno (1991)

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 1077 2006
(July 31)
Official Gazette No. 46,741 of September 4, 2007 CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

Through which the "Convention on the Marking approved Explosives plastics for the purpose of detection ", done at Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991). Summary

Term Notes
THE CONGRESS OF COLOMBIA
having regard to the text of the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, done in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991), which the letter says:
(To be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).

CONVENTION on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection
States Parties to the present Convention,
CONSCIOUS of the implications of acts of terrorism for international security;
EXPRESSING deep concern over terrorist acts aimed at destruction of aircraft, other means of transportation and other targets;
CONCERNED that plastic explosives have been used for such terrorist acts;
CONSIDERING that the marking of such explosives for the purpose of detection would contribute significantly to the prevention of such unlawful acts;
RECOGNIZING that to deter such unlawful acts an international instrument obliging States to adopt appropriate measures to that plastic explosives are duly marked measures is urgently needed;
Considering Resolution 635 of the United Nations Security Council of 14 June 1989 and Resolution 44/29 of the United Nations General Assembly of December 4, 1989, in which it urged the Organization International Civil Aviation to intensify its efforts to establish an international system of marks or sheet plastic explosives to detect their presence;
BEARING IN MIND Resolution A27-8 adopted unanimously by the 27 session of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which supported with maximum and overriding priority the preparation of a new international legal instrument on placement marks in plastic explosives or sheet to facilitate its 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;
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: Article I

For the purposes of this Agreement
1. "Explosives" mean explosive products, commonly known as "plastic explosives", including explosives in flexible or elastic sheet described in the Technical Annex to this Convention.
2. "Detection agent" means a substance as described in the Technical Annex to this Convention which is introduced into an explosive to render it detectable.
3. "Marking" means introducing into an explosive a detection agent in accordance with the Technical Annex to this Convention.
4. "Manufacture" means any process, including reprocessing, that produces explosives.
5. "Duly authorized military devices" include, without this list being exhaustive, cartridges, bombs, projectiles, mines, missiles, rockets, shaped charges, grenades and perforators manufactured exclusively for military or police purposes in accordance with the laws and regulations of the State part concerned.
6. "Producer State" means any State in whose territory explosives are manufactured.

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

1. Each State Party shall take necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent the movement into or out of its territory of unmarked explosives.
2. The preceding paragraph shall not apply to movements for purposes not inconsistent with the objectives of this Convention by the authorities of a State Party performing military or police functions, of unmarked explosives that are under the control of the State Party accordance with paragraph 1o of article 4. Article IV

1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to exercise strict and effective control over the possession or transfer of possession of unmarked explosives which have been manufactured or introduced into their territory before the entry into force of this Convention for that State measures, to prevent their diversion or use for purposes inconsistent with the objectives of this Convention.

2. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all stocks of those explosives referred to in paragraph 1st this article that are not held by its authorities performing military or police functions are destroyed or consumed for purposes not inconsistent with the objectives of this Convention, marked or rendered permanently ineffective, within a period of three years from the entry into force of this Convention for that State.
3. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all stocks of those explosives referred to in paragraph 1st this article that are held by its authorities performing military or police functions and that are not incorporated as an integral part of the artifacts duly authorized military are destroyed or consumed for purposes not inconsistent with the objectives of this Convention, marked or rendered permanently ineffective, within a period of fifteen years from the entry into force of this Agreement with respect to such State.
4. Each State Party shall take the necessary destruction, as soon as possible, in its territory of unmarked explosives which may be discovered therein and which are not mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this article, other than stocks of unmarked explosives held by its authorities performing military or police functions and incorporated as an integral part of duly authorized on the date of entry into force of this Convention for that State military artifacts.
5. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to exercise strict and effective control over the possession and transfer of possession of explosives referred to in paragraph II of Part 1 of the Technical Annex to this Convention, in order to prevent their diversion or use for purposes inconsistent with the objectives of this Convention.
6. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to destroy as soon as possible, in their territory, of unmarked explosives manufactured after the entry into force of this Convention for that State that are not incorporated as specified in paragraph d) of paragraph II of Part 1 of the Technical Annex to this Convention and of unmarked explosives which are no longer fall within any other paragraph of that paragraph II. Article V

1. By this Convention an International Explosives Technical Commission (hereinafter called "the Commission") consisting of not less than fifteen nor more than nineteen members appointed by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (of creating hereinafter called "the Council") from among the candidates proposed by States Parties to this Convention.
2. The members of the Commission shall be experts having direct and substantial experience in manufacturing or explosives detection, investigation or explosives.
3. The members of the Commission shall serve for a period of three years and may be reappointed.
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.
1
Article VI. The Commission shall evaluate technical developments concerning the manufacture, marking and detection of explosives.
2. The Commission, through the Council, shall report its findings to the States Parties and international organizations concerned.
3. Whenever necessary, the Commission shall make recommendations to the Council for amendments to the Technical Annex to this Convention. The Commission will seek to adopt by consensus its decisions on such recommendations. In the absence of consensus the Commission shall take such decisions by a two-thirds majority of its members.
4. The Council may, on the recommendation of the Commission, propose to States Parties amendments to the Technical Annex to this Convention.
1
Article VII. Any State Party may transmit to the Council its comments within ninety days from the date of notification of a proposed amendment to the Technical Annex to this Convention. The Council shall communicate these comments to the Commission as soon as possible so that its consideration. The Council shall invite any State Party which comments on or objects to the proposed amendment to consult the Commission.

2. The Commission will examine the views of States Parties made pursuant to the preceding paragraph and report to the Council. The Council, after examining the report of the Commission, taking into account the nature of the amendment and the comments of States Parties, including producer States, may propose the amendment to all States Parties for adoption.
3. If the proposed amendment has not been objected to by five or more States Parties by written notification to the Council within ninety days from the date of notification of the amendment by the Council, it is deemed to have been adopted, and It will enter into force one hundred and eighty days thereafter or after such other period as specified in the proposed amendment for States Parties not having expressly objected thereto.
4. States Parties having expressly objected to the proposed amendment may, subsequently, by the deposit of an instrument of acceptance or approval, express their consent to be bound by the provisions of the amendment.
5. If five or more States Parties have objected to the proposed amendment, the Council shall refer it to the Commission for further consideration.
6. If the proposed amendment has not been adopted in accordance with the 3rd paragraph of this article, the Council may also convene a conference of all States Parties.
1
Article VIII. States Parties shall transmit, where possible, the Council information that would assist the Commission in carrying out its functions under paragraph 1o of Article VI.
2. States Parties shall keep the Council informed of the measures taken to comply with the provisions of this Convention. The Council shall communicate such information to all States Parties and international organizations concerned. Article IX

The Council, in cooperation with States Parties and relevant international organizations, appropriate measures to facilitate the implementation of this Agreement shall take measures, including the provision of technical assistance and measures for the exchange of information relating to technical developments in the marking and detection of explosives.

Article X The Technical Annex to this Convention shall constitute an integral part thereof.

Article XI 1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which can not be settled by negotiation, be submitted to arbitration at the request of one of them. If within six months from the date of submission of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the form thereof, either party may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by application submitted in accordance with the Statute of the Court.
2. Each State Party at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it is considered not bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph with respect to any State Party which has made such a reservation.
3. Any State Party which has made a reservation under the preceding paragraph may withdraw it at any time by notification to the Depositary.

Article XII Except as provided in Article XI, this Convention shall not be subject to reservations.
1
Article XIII. This Agreement shall be open for signature in Montreal on March 1, 1991, of the States participating in the International Conference on Air Law held in Montreal from February 12 to March 1, 1991. After March 1, 1991 the Convention is open for signature by all States at the Headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal until it enters into force in accordance with paragraph 3rd of this article. States that do not sign this Convention may adhere to it at any time.
2. This Agreement shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by 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 depository. When depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, each State shall declare whether or not a producer State.

3. This Agreement shall enter into force on the sixtieth day following the date of deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary, provided that no fewer than five such States have declared pursuant to the 2nd paragraph of this Article that they are producer States. If thirty-five such instruments are deposited before five producers States have deposited their instruments, this Agreement shall enter into force on the sixtieth day following 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 sixty days after the date of deposit of their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
5. As soon as this Convention enters into force, the Depositary shall register in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter and in accordance with Article 83 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944).

Article XIV The Depositary shall promptly notify all signatories and States Parties:
1. Each signature of this Convention and date thereof.
2. The deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and date thereof, expressly stating whether the State has identified itself as a producer State.
3. The date of entry into force of this Agreement.
4. The date of entry into force of any amendment to this Convention or its Technical Annex.
5. Any denunciation made under Article XV, and
6. Any declaration made under 2nd paragraph of 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 notification.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned plenipotentiaries, duly authorized by their Governments, have signed this Agreement.
DONE at Montreal on March 1, in 1991, in an original, composed of five authentic texts in Spanish, French, English, Russian and Arabic. TECHNICAL ANNEX PART


I
I DESCRIPTION OF EXPLOSIVES. Explosives the 1st paragraph of Article I of this Convention refers are those who:
a) are formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form have a vapor pressure less than 10-4 Pa temperature 25oC;
B) are formulated with a plasticizer, and
c) are, as a mixture, malleable or flexible at normal room temperature.
II. The following explosives, even though meeting the description of explosive in paragraph 1st this Part shall not be considered explosives while they continue to be held or used for the purposes specified below or remain incorporated as there specified, namely those explosives that:
a) are manufactured, or held in limited quantities for use only with proper authorization, research, development or testing of new or modified explosives;
B) are manufactured, or held, in limited quantities solely for use, with permission, for training in explosives detection and / or development or testing of explosives detection equipment;
C) are manufactured, or held, in limited quantities solely for use with proper authorization, for purposes of the auxiliary sciences of the administration of justice; or
d) intended to be and are incorporated as an integral part of duly authorized military devices in the territory of the producer State within three years after the entry into force of this Convention for that State. Such devices produced in this period of three years shall be deemed duly authorized military devices according to the 4th paragraph of Article IV of this Convention.
III. In this Part:
"With proper authorization" means, in subparagraphs a), b) and c) of paragraph 2 O, allowed in accordance with the laws and regulations of the State Party concerned; and
"High explosives" include, without this list being exhaustive, cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine (HMX), pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX). Part II

SCREENING AGENTS

It is understood by detection agent any of the substances listed in the table below. Detection agents described in this Table are intended to enhance the detectability of explosives by vapor detection means. In each case, the detection agent is introduced into an explosive way that is distributed evenly in the finished product. The minimum concentration of the detection agent in the finished product will, at the time of manufacture, shown in the table. TABLE
name
agent detecciónFórmula molecularPeso molecularConcentración minimum
ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN) C9H4 (NO1)
21520.2% by mass 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-Dinitrobutane (DMNB) C6H12 (NO2) 21760.1% by mass
para-Mononitrotoluene (p-MNT) C7H7NO21370.5% by mass
Mononitrotoluene ortho (o-MNT) C7H7NO21370.5% by mass
marked all be considered explosive as a result of its ordinary formula, contains any of the designated detection agents at a concentration level at or above the required minimum. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, January 3, 2002
Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.)
Andres Pastrana Minister of Foreign Affairs,
(Sgd.) Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection" made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991). Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection" made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 ( 1991), that article 1 of this law is passed, will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
Given in Bogotá, DC, honorable ... Presented to Congress by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Transport.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carolina Barco Isakson
.
The Minister of Transport,
Andrés Uriel Gallego Henao. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, January 3, 2002
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 Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection" made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991). Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection" made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 ( 1991), that article 1 of this law is passed, will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
The President of the honorable Senate, Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez
CASTANEDA.
The Secretary General of the honorable Senate,
EMILIO RAMÓN OTERO DAJUD.
The President of the honorable House of Representatives
GROVE OSCAR PALACE.
The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives, ANGELINO
LIZCANO RIVERA.
In compliance with the provisions of paragraph three of the operative part of Auto A-118/2007 of May 9, 2007, File LAT-297 of the Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court, which said:
"(...)
Third. Once corrected the defect which the preamble of this decision refers to the President of the Republic shall have the period specified in the letter to sanction the respective bill, which must retain the same number of passing legislation that is returned "the date is sanctioned here Law 1077 of July 31, 2006," through which the Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection approved "made in Montreal on March 1, 1991, retaining its original numbering and date.
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 September 4, 2007.
Alvaro Uribe

The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, in charge of the functions of the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Camilo Reyes Rodriguez
.
Bogotá, DC, June 12, 2007
P1.1 - 1225-1207 Doctor


ANGELINO LIZCANO RIVERA Secretary General

House of Representatives Bogotá, DC | || Rad. Respected Doctor 1175
:
attentively I refer you to what your competition the trade dated June 8, 2007 signed by Dr. Martha Victoria Sáchica Mendez, Secretary General of the Constitutional Court, referring: Record LAT-297 - Auto A 118 2007 Auto Communication decision.
Cordial greeting,
DANIEL CASTRO FELIPE MORA,
Private Secretary - Presidency.
Annex: What statement. Constitutional Court


General Secretariat CC-DC 47
Bogotá, DC, eight (8) June two thousand and seven (2007) Doctor


Alfredo Cuello Baute President Honorable House of Representatives


City Reference: LAT-297 Files - Auto a 118 2007

Auto Communication decision Respected Doctor:
at the time, in compliance with the auto provisions Sala Plena a 118 2007, dated May 9 of this year, comes this Secretariat to inform the decision in the ruling in question. To which is attached to this communication of the text of Law 1077 of 2006, "through which the 'Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for detection purposes' is approved, made in Montreal, the first (1st) of March in 1991 (1991) ".
Sincerely,
Sáchica MENDEZ MARTHA VICTORIA, General Secretary
. It is attached
:
- Auto Copy A 118 2007 in nineteen (19) folios.
- Text of the Law 1077 of 2006 in thirteen (13) pages.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT JUDICIARY Constitutional

Subject LAT-297 Filing Date 8 August 2006
... Subject Law Judge from 1077 to 1006, "through which the Convention was adopted the marking of plastic explosives for purpose of detection ", done at Montreal on 1 March 1991.
accused Norma / or review ... President of the Republic ... Date
Actor Casting ... Doctor Alvaro Tafur Galvis || | delivery date 9 August 2006 1077 2006

LAW (July 31)
through which the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the purpose of detection" is approved, made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991).
THE CONGRESS OF COLOMBIA
having regard to the text of the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, done in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991), which the letter says:
(To be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).

CONVENTION on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection
States Parties to the present Convention,
CONSCIOUS of the implications of acts of terrorism for international security;
EXPRESSING deep concern over terrorist acts aimed at destruction of aircraft, other means of transportation and other targets;
CONCERNED that plastic explosives have been used for such terrorist acts;
CONSIDERING that the marking of such explosives for the purpose of detection would contribute significantly to the prevention of such unlawful acts;
RECOGNIZING that to deter such unlawful acts an international instrument obliging States to adopt appropriate measures to that plastic explosives are duly marked measures is urgently needed;
Considering Resolution 635 of the United Nations Security Council of 14 June 1989 and Resolution 44/29 of the United Nations General Assembly of December 4, 1989, in which it urged the Organization International Civil Aviation to intensify its efforts to establish an international system of marks or sheet plastic explosives to detect their presence;
BEARING IN MIND Resolution A27-8 adopted unanimously by the 27 session of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which supported with maximum and overriding priority the preparation of a new international legal instrument on placement marks in plastic explosives or sheet to facilitate its 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;
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I.


For the purposes of this Agreement

1. "Explosives" mean explosive products, commonly known as "plastic explosives", including explosives in flexible or elastic sheet described in the Technical Annex to this Convention.
2. "Detection agent" means a substance as described in the Technical Annex to this Convention which is introduced into an explosive to render it detectable.
3. "Marking" means introducing into an explosive a detection agent in accordance with the Technical Annex to this Convention.
4. "Manufacture" means any process, including reprocessing, that produces explosives.
5. "Duly authorized military devices" include, without this list being exhaustive, cartridges, bombs, projectiles, mines, missiles, rockets, shaped charges, grenades and perforators manufactured exclusively for military or police purposes in accordance with the laws and regulations of the State part concerned.
6. "Producer State" means any State in whose territory explosives are manufactured.
ARTICLE II.
Each State Party shall take necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent the manufacture in its territory of unmarked explosives.

ARTICLE III.

1. Each State Party shall take necessary and effective measures to prohibit and prevent the movement into or out of its territory of unmarked explosives.
2. The preceding paragraph shall not apply to movements for purposes not inconsistent with the objectives of this Convention by the authorities of a State Party performing military or police functions, of unmarked explosives that are under the control of the State Party accordance with paragraph 1o of article 4.

ARTICLE IV.

1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to exercise strict and effective control over the possession or transfer of possession of unmarked explosives which have been manufactured or introduced into their territory before the entry into force of this Convention for that State measures, to prevent their diversion or use for purposes inconsistent with the objectives of this Convention.
2. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all stocks of those explosives referred to in paragraph 1st this article that are not held by its authorities performing military or police functions are destroyed or consumed for purposes not inconsistent with the objectives of this Convention, marked or rendered permanently ineffective, within a period of three years from the entry into force of this Convention for that State.
3. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all stocks of those explosives referred to in paragraph 1st this article that are held by its authorities performing military or police functions and that are not incorporated as an integral part of the artifacts duly authorized military are destroyed or consumed for purposes not inconsistent with the objectives of this Convention, marked or rendered permanently ineffective, within a period of fifteen years from the entry into force of this Agreement with respect to such State.
4. Each State Party shall take the necessary destruction, as soon as possible, in its territory of unmarked explosives which may be discovered therein and which are not mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this article, other than stocks of unmarked explosives held by its authorities performing military or police functions and incorporated as an integral part of duly authorized on the date of entry into force of this Convention for that State military artifacts.
5. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to exercise strict and effective control over the possession and transfer of possession of explosives referred to in paragraph II of Part 1 of the Technical Annex to this Convention, in order to prevent their diversion or use for purposes inconsistent with the objectives of this Convention.
6. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to destroy as soon as possible, in their territory, of unmarked explosives manufactured after the entry into force of this Convention for that State that are not incorporated as specified in paragraph d) of paragraph II of Part 1 of the Technical Annex to this Convention and of unmarked explosives which are no longer fall within any other paragraph of that paragraph II.
ARTICLE V.

1. By this Convention an International Explosives Technical Commission (hereinafter called "the Commission") consisting of not less than fifteen nor more than nineteen members appointed by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (of creating hereinafter called "the Council") from among the candidates proposed by States Parties to this Convention.
2. The members of the Commission shall be experts having direct and substantial experience in manufacturing or explosives detection, investigation or explosives.
3. The members of the Commission shall serve for a period of three years and may be reappointed.
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 evaluate technical developments concerning the manufacture, marking and detection of explosives.
2. The Commission, through the Council, shall report its findings to the States Parties and international organizations concerned.
3. Whenever necessary, the Commission shall make recommendations to the Council for amendments to the Technical Annex to this Convention. The Commission will seek to adopt by consensus its decisions on such recommendations. In the absence of consensus the Commission shall take such decisions by a two-thirds majority of its members.
4. The Council may, on the recommendation of the Commission, propose to States Parties amendments to the Technical Annex to this Convention.

ARTICLE VII.

1. Any State Party may transmit to the Council its comments within ninety days from the date of notification of a proposed amendment to the Technical Annex to this Convention. The Council shall communicate these comments to the Commission as soon as possible so that its consideration. The Council shall invite any State Party which comments on or objects to the proposed amendment to consult the Commission.
2. The Commission will examine the views of States Parties made pursuant to the preceding paragraph and report to the Council. The Council, after examining the report of the Commission, taking into account the nature of the amendment and the comments of States Parties, including producer States, may propose the amendment to all States Parties for adoption.
3. If the proposed amendment has not been objected to by five or more States Parties by written notification to the Council within ninety days from the date of notification of the amendment by the Council, it is deemed to have been adopted, and It will enter into force one hundred and eighty days thereafter or after such other period as specified in the proposed amendment for States Parties not having expressly objected thereto.
4. States parties which have so expressly objected to the proposed amendment may, subsequently, by the deposit of an instrument of acceptance or approval, express their consent to be bound by the provisions of the amendment.
5. If five or more States Parties have objected to the proposed amendment, the Council shall refer it to the Commission for further consideration.
6. If the proposed amendment has not been adopted in accordance with the 3rd paragraph of this article, the Council may also convene a conference of all States Parties. Effective Jurisprudence


ARTICLE VIII.

1. States Parties shall transmit, where possible, the Council information that would assist the Commission in carrying out its functions under paragraph 1o of Article VI.
2. States Parties shall keep the Council informed of the measures taken to comply with the provisions of this Convention. The Council shall communicate such information to all States Parties and international organizations concerned.

ARTICLE IX.

The Council, in cooperation with States Parties and relevant international organizations shall take appropriate steps to facilitate the implementation of this Convention measures, including the provision of technical assistance and measures for the exchange of information relating to technical developments in the field of marking and detection of explosives.
ARTICLE X.


Technical Annex to this Convention shall constitute an integral part thereof.

ARTICLE XI.


1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which can not be settled by negotiation, be submitted to arbitration at the request of one of them. If within six months from the date of submission of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the form thereof, either party may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by application submitted in accordance with the Statute of the Court.
2. Each State Party at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it is considered not bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph with respect to any State Party which has made such a reservation.
3. Any State Party which has made a reservation under the preceding paragraph may withdraw it at any time by notification to the Depositary.

ARTICLE XII.

Except as provided in Article XI, this Convention shall not be subject to reservations.

ARTICLE XIII.

1. This Agreement shall be open for signature in Montreal on March 1, 1991, of the States participating in the International Conference on Air Law held in Montreal from February 12 to March 1, 1991. After March 1, 1991 the Convention is open for signature by all States at the Headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal until it enters into force in accordance with paragraph 3rd of this article. States that do not sign this Convention may adhere to it at any time.
2. This Agreement shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by 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 depository. When depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, each State shall declare whether or not a producer State.
3. This Agreement shall enter into force on the sixtieth day following the date of deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary, provided that no fewer than five such States have declared pursuant to the 2nd paragraph of this Article that they are producer States. If thirty-five such instruments are deposited before five producers States have deposited their instruments, this Agreement shall enter into force on the sixtieth day following 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 sixty days after the date of deposit of their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
5. As soon as this Convention enters into force, the Depositary shall register in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter and in accordance with Article 83 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944).

ARTICLE XIV.

The Depositary shall promptly notify all signatories and States Parties:
1. Each signature of this Convention and date thereof.
2. The deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and date thereof, expressly stating whether the State has identified itself as a producer State.
3. The date of entry into force of this Agreement.
4. The date of entry into force of any amendment to this Convention or its Technical Annex.
5. Any denunciation made under Article XV, and
6. Any declaration made under 2nd paragraph of 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 notification.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned plenipotentiaries, duly authorized by their Governments, have signed this Agreement.
DONE at Montreal on March 1, in 1991, in an original, composed of five authentic texts in Spanish, French, English, Russian and Arabic.
TECHNICAL ANNEX.

PART I. DESCRIPTION OF EXPLOSIVES.
I. Explosives paragraph 1 of article 1 of the Convention refers are those who:

A) are formulated with one or more high explosives which in its pure form have a vapor pressure below 10-4 Pa to temperature 25oC;
B) are formulated with a plasticizer, and
c) are, as a mixture, malleable or flexible at normal room temperature.
II. The following explosives, even though meeting the description of explosives in paragraph I of this Part, shall not be considered explosives while they continue to be held or used for the purposes specified below or remain incorporated as there specified, namely those explosives that:
a) are manufactured, or held in limited quantities for use only with proper authorization, research, development or testing of new or modified explosives;
B) are manufactured, or held, in limited quantities solely for use, with permission, for training in explosives detection and / or development or testing of explosives detection equipment;
C) are manufactured, or held, in limited quantities solely for use with proper authorization, for purposes of the auxiliary sciences of the administration of justice; or
d) intended to be and are incorporated as an integral part of duly authorized military devices in the territory of the producer State within three years after the entry into force of this Convention for that State. Such devices produced in this period of three years shall be deemed duly authorized military devices within paragraph 4 of Article IV of this Convention.
III. In this Part:
"With proper authorization" means, in subparagraphs a), b) and c) of paragraph II, permitted under the laws and regulations of the State Party concerned; and
"High explosives" include, without this list being exhaustive, cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine (HMX), pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX).
PART II.
Detection agents.
It is understood by detection agent any of the substances listed in the table below. Detection agents described in this Table are intended to enhance the detectability of explosives by vapor detection means. In each case, the detection agent is introduced into an explosive way that is distributed evenly in the finished product. The minimum concentration of the detection agent in the finished product will, at the time of manufacture, shown in the table. TABLE
name
agent detecciónFórmula molecularPeso molecularConcentración minimum
ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN) C9H4 (NO1)
21520.2% by mass 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-Dinitrobutane (DMNB) C6H12 (NO2) 21760.1% by mass
para-Mononitrotoluene (p-MNT) C7H7NO21370.5% by mass
Mononitrotoluene ortho (o-MNT) C7H7NO21370.5% by mass
marked all be considered explosive as a result of its ordinary formula, contains any of the designated detection agents at a concentration level at or above the required minimum. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, January 3, 2002
Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.)
Andres Pastrana Minister of Foreign Affairs,
(Sgd.) Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection" made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991). Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection" made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 ( 1991), that article 1 of this law is passed, will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
Given in Bogotá, DC, honorable ... Presented to Congress by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Transport.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carolina Barco Isakson
.
The Minister of Transport,
Andrés Uriel Gallego Henao. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, January 3, 2002
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. Approval of the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection" made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991). Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection" made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 ( 1991), that article 1 of this law is passed, will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. 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. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT


Room Full Auto A-118/2007
Reference: LAT-297
Record Constitutional review of the Law 1077 of 2006 "Through which approved the 'Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection ', done at Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991) ".
Magistrate: Alvaro Tafur Galvis
Bogotá, DC, nine (9) May two thousand and seven (2007).
The Plenum of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to its constitutional powers has issued the following
I
AUTO. BACKGROUND
The "Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for detection purposes", signed in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991), by the then Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary in Canada, Dr. Germán Montoya Velez, under the full powers given to it by the President Dr. César Gaviria Trujillo, on August 16, 1991, pursuant to the authority contained in Article 189, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
For his part, the President of the Republic, Dr. Andrés Pastrana Arango, gave the Convention the appropriate executive approval, the three (3) January 2002 and ordered consideration of Congress.
Congress issued Law 831 of 2003, approving the Convention under study, approved by the President of the Republic on July 10, 2003 and published in the Official Gazette 45,248 of 14 July 2003. The Court by Judgment C-309 March 31, 2004, declared unconstitutional for procedural defects, Law 831 of 2003, since in the Senate during the process not the end of eight days abided required in Article 160 the Constitution, in relation to the period that must elapse between the approval of the project in the respective Constitutional Commission and its deliberations and voting in plenary and that the relevant bill was submitted to five debates, but had reopened the debate compliance with applicable regulations.
The President of the Republic, Dr. Alvaro Uribe Velez gave the corresponding executive approval again and again ordered the aforementioned Convention submit to the Congress of the Republic who passed Law 1077 of 2006 under examination.
The Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, reached out to the Corporation, on August 8, 2006, authentic copy of the Law 1077 of 2006 "Through which the 'Convention on the Marking approved explosives plastics for detection purposes', made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991) ".

By order of 18 August 2006, in order to exercise judicial review that section 10 of article 241 of the Constitution mandates, examining the aforementioned Convention and approves the law that was assumed. In the same order to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Commerce, Industry and Tourism and Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, he officiated for which addressed the Corporation's background material Convention review, as well as the pronouncement concerning the constitutionality of it. Likewise run was ordered transferred to Attorney General's Office in order to surrender the concept of rigor. the Secretaries-General of the Senate, of the House of Representatives and the Second Committees Constitutional Standing of both legislative chambers, was also officiated to send copies of the gazettes of Congress where the project that culminated in the expedition was published examine the sub law and paper presentations and reports for the respective constitutional debates; also, to certify on the development of the discussions that were held for discussing and approving that project, specifying the date on which it was approved, the quorum and voting finally obtained as well as the requirement for ad discussion and voting established in Article 160 above.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
1. Competition and trackable
In keeping with the provisions of Article 241, paragraph 10 of the Constitution, for the Court reviewing the constitutionality of international treaties and laws approving them. The Court has repeatedly affirmed so that said constitutional control comprises the entire contents of these legal acts, both formal and substantive aspects (1). In this order, the Court I pronounce solely in connection with the examination of the constitutionality of Law 1077 of 2006 "Through which the 'Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for detection purposes' is approved, made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991) "for its formal aspects, for which it has identified, as explained passes, a vice that must be remedied by the Congress.
2. Analysis constitutionality of Law 1077 of 2006 by its formal aspects
2.1. Verification of the legislative process followed for the issuance of Law 1077 of 2006
Based on the certifications sent to the Court by the Senate and the House of Representatives and in the legislative history and the records published in the Gazettes of the Congress, it was determined that the selection process at the Corporation for the issuance of Law No. 1077 of 2006, "through which the 'Convention was adopted on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes 'made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991) ", it was as follows:
2.1.1. The bill together with the explanatory memorandum was presented to the Senate by the National Government through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Carolina Barco, and the Minister of Transportation, Dr. Andrés Uriel Gallego Henao, April 4 2005, and was filed as number 249 -Senado- 2005 and published in the Congress Gazette Year XIV, No. 149 Monday, April 11, 2005 (pp. 34-39) (Folios 143-148, Notebook Testing 2).
2.1.2. This project with its corresponding explanatory memorandum was delivered to the Second Constitutional Commission of the Senate where the first debate being Senators Jimmy Chamorro speakers the Efren Cruz and Felix Tarapués Cuaical was filled. The paper published in the Gazette number 341 Congress Thursday June 9, 2005 (pp. 1-2) (Folios 158-159, Notebook Test 2) was discussed and approved with a deliberative quorum and decision-making twelve (12) votes in favor and none against thirteen (13) members on the Commission, at a meeting of sixteen (16) June 2005 as stated in the Act number 38 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette number 852 of December 2, 2005 (pp. 2 and 3) (Folios 5-6 Notebook Test 8) and as certified by twenty-four (24) August 2006, issued by the Secretary General of the Commission Second Standing Constitutional Senate of the Republic (Folio 1, Test Booklet 8).

Now, as stated in the Act No. 37 of the regular meeting of fifteen (15) June 2005 published in the Gazette number 851 Congress December 2, 2005 (pp. 2 and 3) (Folios 5 6 Notebook Test 8), as certified by twenty-four (24) August 2006, issued by the Secretary General of the Commission Second Constitutional Standing Senate of the Republic (Folio 1, Binder Test 8), within the bills whose voting was announced by the Secretary of the Corporation for the session of the sixteen (16) June 2005 featured the bill 249 of 2005 -Senado-, "through which the Convention on the marking approved of plastic explosives for detection purposes. " So, the Court finds that in this case was complied with the mandate contained in the last paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution.
2.1.3. The plenary of the Senate ahead of the second debate based on the paper published in the Gazette number 460 Congress Monday August 1, 2005 (pp. 7 and 8) (Folios 156-157, Notebook Test 2) where Jimmy Chamorro speakers Efren Cruz and Felix Tarapués Cuaical. The project was approved in ordinary session on five (5) October 2005 with a deliberative and decision-making quorum of ninety-seven (97) of one hundred and two (102) Senators who make up the plenary, as stated in the Act number 18 of the same date published in the Gazette number 762 Congress Wednesday November 2, 2005 (pp. 10 and 11), (Folios 187-188, Notebook Test 2) and as certified by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic of thirty-one (31) August 2006 (Folio 1, Test Booklet 2).
Now, as stated in the Act number 17 of the regular meeting of four (4) October 2005 published in the Gazette number 794 Congress Friday November 4, 2005 (p. 41) (Folio 42, notebook Test 2) and as certified by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic of thirty-one (31) August 2006 (Folio 1, notebook Test 2), within the bills whose vote was announced by the Secretary of the Corporation for the session of five (5) October 2005 featured the bill 249 of 2005 -Senado-, "through which adopted the Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes." So, the Court finds that in this case also was complied with the mandate contained in the last paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution.
2.1.4. Once settled the bill in the House of Representatives under number 178 -Cámara- 2005, the Second Constitutional Permanent Commission advanced the first debate on the basis of the paper published in the Gazette of the 188th Congress on Monday, 15 May 2006 (p. 2) (Folio 97 Notebook Test 1), being rapporteur Luis Alberto Monsalvo G. Representative This project was discussed and approved with the assistance of seventeen (17) Representatives unanimously in regular session of thirty (30) May 2006, as stated in the Act No. 23 of thirty (30) May 2006 from the Commission Second Standing Constitutional published in the Gazette number 340 Congress September 4, 2006 (pp. 5 and 6 ) (Folios 18 to 19 of Notebook Test 11).
Now, as stated in the Act number 01 regular meeting of the seventeen (17) May 2006 published in the Gazette number 333 Congress first (1st) September 2006 (p. 12) (Folio 13 Notebook Test 7), and as certified by the Secretary General of the Commission Second Permanent Constitution of the House of Representatives issued twenty-eight (28) September 2006 (Folio 1 Notebook Test 7), within the bills whose vote was announced by the Secretary of the Corporation for the session of thirty (30) May 2006 it appeared the bill -Cámara- 178 2005 and 249 2005 -Senado-, "through which approves the Convention on the marking of plastic explosives for detection purposes. " So, the Court finds that in this case also was complied with the mandate contained in the last paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution.

2.1.5. The plenary of the House of Representatives ahead of the second debate of the bill, after the paper published in the Gazette of the 160th Congress on Monday, June 5, 2006 (pp. 11 and 12) (Folios 180-181, Notebook Test 10), rapporteur Luis Alberto Monsalvo G. Representative said paper was discussed and approved at a plenary session of seven (7) in June 2006 by a majority of one hundred and fifty present and three (153) Representatives of the Corporation, as stated in the Act number 234 of the same date published in the Gazette number 220 Congress Tuesday twenty-seven (27) June 2006 (pp. 14 and 15) (Folios 32 and 33, Notebook Test 10) and by a certificate issued by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives of seven (7) June 2006 (3 Notebook Folio Test 10).
Now, as stated in the Act number 233 of the regular meeting of the six (6) June 2006 published in the Gazette number 228 Congress Wednesday July 12, 2006, (pp. 27 and 28), ( folios 70-71 Notebook Test 10), and according to certification issued by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives of twenty-four (24) August 2006 (Folio 3 Notebook Test 10), within the bills whose vote was was announced by the Secretary of the Corporation for seven (7) June 2006 session, the bill appeared 178 2005 and 249 2005 -Cámara- -Senado-, "through which the Convention on the marking approved of plastic explosives for detection purposes. " So, the Court finds that in this case also was complied with the mandate contained in the last paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution.
2.1.6. The President of the Republic, Dr. Alvaro Uribe Velez passed the law approving the sub EXAMINE Convention, the thirty-one (31) of July 2006, under number 1077 and forwarded to the Corporation, being received on day eight (8 ) August of the year two thousand and six (2006), ie, within the period provided for in Article 241-10 of the Constitution for review.
2.1.7. Bearing in mind the previous count, the Court finds that the procedure observed for the approval of the law under examination, it was supplied in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, with the exception that more will be brought forward. Indeed, the project began in the Senate of the Republic as mandated by the last paragraph of Article 154 Superior; He met the requirements referred to in Article 157 of the Constitution regarding i) the initial publication of the project, ii) approval by the Permanent Constitutional Commission II and the Plenary of each House, and iii) the sanction by the Government. Also were presented at the Permanent Second Committees of each House reports presentation required by Article 160 superior, in the same way that was respected in the Senate, the deadline established therein must mediate between the first and second debate in each chamber as well as between project approval in one and the initiation of the debate in the other corporation. In the same way it was fulfilled in committees and plenary with the requirement stated in the same article from the approval of the number 01 Legislative Act of 2003 compared to the previous announcement that the project would be submitted for discussion and voting. He was finally approved by the President of the Republic, also within the constitutional term.
The Court notes, however, that, as this puts the Attorney General's Office (2), in the House of Representatives was not respected within 8 days to mediate between the first and the second debate as established Article 160 higher.
3. Failure to comply with the requirement indicated in the first paragraph of Article 160 higher on no less than eight days to mediate between the first and the second debate in each chamber within.
According to the first paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution, "Between the first and the second debate must elapse a period of not less than eight days, and between approval of the project in one of the chambers and the initiation of discussion in the other, must spend at least fifteen days. "

As the Court pointed out the will of the Constituent to set the period prescribed in the above constitutional provision, it was to enhance the sense of debate and ensure a period of reflection for members of committees and plenary to meditate on the approved project, and prepare for the discussion, which involves exposure of ideas, criteria and various concepts, such as serious and respectful confrontation between them; examining the possibilities and collective consideration, reasoned and founded, about the impact the project will have to discuss (3).
It should be noted that this Court has stated that the period specified in Article 160 of the Superior Text, should be accounted for in public and non-working days. In this regard he explained the Corporation:
"It is clear that as we established this Court (4), 8 days established by the Constitution, does not refer necessarily to working days, since Congress can sit properly on any day within the week, as long as it is within a legislature or outside it, in the event that there convocation of Government "(5).
However, in the opinion of the Corporation, such term elapses in full, ie that "each and every one of the days that compose it must be full days, so the dates are held the debates in the chambers, can not be included in the count of the term "(6).
In this regard the Court has stated that "the requirement of the Charter turns out to be urgent in the sense that the manner indicated above must elapse full, ie without taking away any of the days required by the constitutional provision. Not surprisingly this states that must mediate in the first case a period 'not less than eight days' and in the second, 'must wait at least fifteen days'. This is minimum space of time, so that if the ratings are produced without having taken into account completely, the relevant acts have no validity and effects "(7).
Is, those terms must be met fully, and as such must pass entirely without subtracting any of the days established in constitutional law, which means that each and every one of the days that compose them must be complete, not during that period they can take into account the dates when the debates were dispensed in committees and plenary of each chamber.
Now it is clear that in this case the bill number 2005 178 House, 249 2005 Senate filled during the first debate in the House of Representatives on May 30, 2006, the day which was approved in second Constitutional Commission, while the second debate was supplied on June 7, 2006, session that was approved by the Plenary of the House of Representatives. That is, that the term reflection obviously alluded to, in this case, it was only 7 days, within this lower than Article 160 higher.
For the Court is clear then the configuration in the case of a procedural error as the lapse obviously was not respected expressly stated by Article 160 above.
4. The subsanable character in this case the defect identified
Now, against the vice identified procedure must be remembered that according to settled case-law (8) not any infringement of a rule on the formation of laws contained in the Constitution or the Regulations of Congress, inevitably entails the invalidity of the law and its declaration of unconstitutionality.
It is worth reiterating that constitutional rules on formation of laws that aim to preserve the essential content of the institutional system designed by the Constituent Assembly, as well as ensure that the debate in Congress is comprehensive, transparent and rational (9 ), they have no value in themselves and should be interpreted purposively in the service of material values ​​that these rules are intended to perform (arts. 1st, 2nd and 228 of the Constitution) (10).
Also, in accordance with paragraph of Article 241 of the Constitution when the Court finds correctable defects in the formation process of the act subject to control order their return to the authority that issued them so that, if possible, amend the failure observed and to remedy the defect, proceed to decide on the constitutionality of the act.

This paragraph expressly states that "when the Court finds correctable defects in the formation process of the act subject to its control, order their return to the authority that issued them so that, if possible, amend the defect observed". Text was developed by Decree-Law 2067 of 1991 that Article 45 provides:
Article 45. When the Court finds correctable defects in the formation process of the act subject to its control, the authority will order their return who uttered so within the period set by the Court, if possible, amend the defect. Remedy the defect or expiration of the term, the Court will decide on the constitutionality of the act.
This term may not exceed thirty days from the time the authority is able to correct it.
In the same way Article 202 of Law 5 of 1992 states:
Article 202. Vices correctable. When the Constitutional Court finds, in the formation of the law or the legislative act rectifiable defects procedure to return the draft order, the law or legislative act to the legislative chambers so that, if possible, amend the defect. This event will be a priority in the agenda. I corrected the defect within thirty (30) days following their return, it shall be submitted to the same court to decide definitively on their constitutionality.
This possibility, as noted by the Corporation, (11) is not only a realization of the principle of conservation of law, but also a manifestation of the democratic principle to the extent that allows it to be directly Congress representative body par excellence, who constitutional remedy possible mistakes in incurred. However, this possibility must be exercised reasonably, that is, can not imply the complete repetition of the legislative process, because one thing is a flaw in the procedure, and quite another is the absence of procedure as such (12 ).
Regard in the judgment C-737 of 2001 (13) where the Court systematized the conditions that allowed a defect in the legislative process subsanable training outside stated:
"32. However, the Court states that in each of the above assumptions, the possibility of granting the sanitation law should be interpreted reasonably and exercise; In other words, you can not be granted such power such a broad scope, which ends up distorting the notion of invalidating the legislative procedure. To be able to speak of a saneable defect in the formation process of the law, it is necessary that at least has complied with the structural stages of such a procedure, since the omission of these for example, the pretermisión of debates before any of the legislative powers, cameras, makes it impossible to speak of a legislative procedure as such-and therefore preclude consideration of the respective omission as a vicious. Indeed, these events would not itself a procedural flaw in the training of law but an absence or lack of procedure, which can not be remedied. Therefore, it is impossible to classify as 'sanitation' which actually amounts to a repetition of a whole stage of the legislative process, since otherwise it would end up circumventing the same substantive purposes that the principle of instrumentality of It seeks ways to preserve.
33. According to the above, the principle of instrumentality of forms, expressly enshrined in Article 228 of the Charter implies that the realization that occurred an irregularity in the proceedings of a law, not inevitably means that the constitutional court must always remove it from system. It is necessary that, previously, the judge will examine (i) if the defect is sufficiently significant to constitute a defect capable of affecting the validity of the law; (Ii) if the irregularity represents a vice, the Court must examine whether there was not a validation of that vice during the process of the law itself; (Iii) if the defect was not validated, the Court must consider whether it is possible to send the law back to Congress and the President to to remedy the defect observed; and (iv) if it has none of the above assumptions, the Court must determine whether it may itself remedy, in his speech, the detected defect, in accordance with the above outlined guidelines, and respecting the principle of reasonableness " (14).

In application of these criteria in various rulings the Court has indicated that such a possibility exists in relation specifically to the case of laws approving treaties, especially when the nature of the same and the characteristics of judicial review to them it is impossible to submit the ratification of relevant international instrument until the constitutionality of the law itself and its passing by the Court is not declared. It also has mentioned that if certain conditions are the remedy of defects can be effected without the principles and rules of the legislative function and the mandates of the Constitution on the approval of the bills are altered, without other procedural requirements as set are unknown in Article 162 above.
So in Auto 088 of 2005, the Court stated:
"However, the Court considers that the criteria in the decisions have been referred are applicable in this case, especially when it comes a law approving treaty which by their nature and characteristics of judicial review to which they are subject (art. 241-8) (15) is impossible ratification of relevant international instrument until the constitutionality of it is not declared and his law approvingly by the Court.
This possibility is evident also because the vice except that reference has been made, the processing of the project that culminated in the issuance of Law 900 of 2004 was fulfilled entirely in harmony with the Constitution as follows count made in the relevant passages of this decision.
To this should be added that for sanitation vice incurred that it is not necessary to remake the entire legislative process while sanitation that possibility does not imply, contrary to the claims Mr. Attorney General's Office , ignorance of other procedural requirements as set out in Article 162 above.
In this regard it should be noted that the temporary limit referred to in Article 162 above whereby 'no bill will be considered in more than two terms' is only predicable of the action taken by Congress but not of the review automatic entrusted to the Constitutional Court.
So since the procedure that must be filled for the correction of the identified defect is a result of the exercise of review by the Court (Art. 241-10), can not be understood that in these circumstances the requirement is not known that the process is filled at maximum two terms (art. 162 CP), as this is preached to the legislature, which in this case effectively processed and voted the bill within that period as it appears from the analyzed legislative dossier by the slicing, but not of the consequences arising from the exercise of judicial review, which are governed by superiors and legal mandates that allow sanitation of procedural errors (CP paragraph of Article 241, Article 202 of the Law 5 1992 and Article 45 of Decree 2067 of 1991) (16).
No reason for attending Mr. Attorney and from this perspective there is no doubt the nature of the defect identified saneable.
It could be argued, however, that in these circumstances is what is given the configuration of a 'vice competition' as in any case would have violated the mandate contained in Article 149 above whereby 'Any meeting of members of Congress, in order to exercise their own legislative branch of government functions, it takes place outside the constitutional conditions, it is void '; and 'to acts performed may not be given effect, and those involved in the deliberations, be punished according to law.
Respect, the Court draws attention to the fact that the mandate referred to by that article must be interpreted in the specific context of the chapter of the Constitution in which it is inserted, namely Chapter 2 of Title VI of the Constitution on the Legislative Branch, which articulated refers to the general conditions of assembly and operation of Congress. (17)
Chapter which has a range which must necessarily be differentiated from Chapter 3 of Title VI of the Constitution which specifically articulated sets rules of procedure for the processing of laws.

To this should be added that if the interpretation of the scope of Article 142 to superior reference has been made to be accepted, any procedural defect in the formation of a law of those listed in Chapter 3 of Title VI of the Constitution -even consistently held that the Corporation have been identified as subsanables- competition would set a vice necessarily invalidate the performance of legislators in both become ineffective. Conclusion that clearly unreasonable "(18).
Now, it is particularly relevant to the present case, remember that the first statement admitted subsanibilidad of a procedural defect concerning laws approving treaties was the Judgment C-607 of 1992 (19). It was established that the process of omitting the requirement to pass a certain number of days between the debates in the Chambers, it was correctable (20) vice.
Also by way of example it may be recalled that in the process of Act 178 of 1994, "Through which the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property is approved", made in Paris on March 20 1883, with respective subsequent revisions, "the Court found that the term of 8 full days must elapse between discussions referred to in Article 160-1 was not respected. The Court found, however, that was a fundamentally flawed so the law back to Congress to be approved in its second reading in the House of Representatives, in accordance with the policy (21) Charter.
It should be noted however that, as already noted in Item I of this decision, in the judgment C-309 of 2004 (22) the Court declared unconstitutional for procedural defects, Law 831 of 2003 "by which the 'Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection' is approved, made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991), "among other reasons (23) because during the processing of the same eight days as required under Article 160 of the Constitution has not complied, in relation to the period that must elapse between the approval of the project in the respective Constitutional Commission and its deliberations and voting in plenary. Identical decision adopted by the Court in the Judgment C-120 of 2004 (24) which declared the unconstitutionality of Law 830 of 2003 "Through which the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation approved "he made in Rome, ten (10) March in 1988 (1988) and the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome this tenth day (10) March in 1988 (1988) ", but that, in both cases regarding breach of the aforementioned requirement during the debates in the Senate of the Republic, remarks the Court-.
In this regard it should be noted that in terms of processing of bills to ratify treaties the Court has warned that is relevant to the analysis of the possibility of remedy or not a procedural defect, the stage of the process that was configured and specifically if the defect occurred in the debates in the Senate or in the House of Representatives.

For example, in relation to the breach of ads prior to the discussion and voting on the projects and Plenary Commissions established by article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003 in Judgment C-241 of 2006 (25 ) the Court stated that "although the omission of the requirement of Article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003 is in principle correctable, such a possibility is not given if the serious irregularities in the notice served on the first of the debates around the approval process of law. ". Later in Judgment C-576 of 2006 (26) the Court stated that "one shortcoming in fulfilling the requirement of prior notice laid down in Article 160 CP until the vote in the Plenary of the Senate is considered as a defect in the irremediable legislative process that will trigger the declaration of unconstitutionality of a law approving an international treaty. On the other hand, a shortcoming in the fulfillment of that requirement in a post-vote in the Plenary of the Senate time is considered a fundamentally flawed that will trigger the return of a law approving an international treaty to Congress to remedy the defect and continue the process from the moment that occurred when remediableness other conditions are met. " Criterion reiterated in Judgment C-649 of 2006 (27), where he said that "The essential condition of remediableness, established in the judgment, is that the Senate has decided so that the camera where by constitutional mandate must start the process of draft laws approving a treaty has fully expressed its will. "
In keeping with the criteria set out in the present case the Court finds that i) the vice-consisting identified in ignorance of the first paragraph of Article 160 top- occurred during the processing of the bill under examination in debates it assortments in the House of Representatives, ii) is the only procedural defect identified by the Court in relation to the processing of that project, iii) without the principles and rules of the legislative function altered or the mandates contained in the Constitution on the approval of the bills, especially the principle of consecutiveness, and without other procedural requirements as set are unknown in Article 162 higher, you can roll back action to amend the flaw in the process that has been incurred in the present case, so it must be concluded that the identified defect is remedied and therefore allows to proceed, not the declaration of unconstitutionality of Law 1077 of 2006, "through which the 'Convention is approved on the marking of plastic explosives for purpose of detection ', done at Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991), "but his return to the Plenary of the House of Representatives for a new trial the respective procedure.
In that vein, a term of 30 days is granted from the date of notification of this car in the Presidency of the House of Representatives, to be announcing the discussion and voting by the Plenary of the House again Representatives of the paper for the second debate of bill 178 2005 and 249 2005 -Cámara- -Senado-. The Plenary of the House of Representatives have until December 16, 2007 to meet the later stages of the legislative process.
Assortment Once that procedure, the President of the Republic shall have the period specified in the Charter to sanction the respective bill, which must retain the same number of passing law is returned.
Having completed the previous procedure, the President of Congress sent to the Court Act 1077 of 2006, for a final decision on its constitutionality.
In light of the foregoing, the Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Colombia, administering justice on behalf of the people and by mandate of the Constitution, Resolves
:
First. For General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, I let him 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' is approved, made in Montreal, the first (1st) March in 1991 (1991) ", so that processed sanitation procedural defect detected in this decision.

Second. Within 30 days of the notification of this car in the Presidency the House of Representatives shall announce the discussion and voting by the Plenary of the House of Representatives of the paper for the second debate of Bill 178 2005 -Camera again - 2005 and 249 -Senado-. The Plenary of the House of Representatives have until December 16, 2007 to meet the later stages of the legislative process.
Third. Once corrected the defect which the preamble of this decision refers to the President of the Republic shall have the period laid down in the Charter to sanction the respective bill, which must retain the same number of passing legislation that is returned .
Room. Having completed the previous procedure, the President of Congress sent to the Court Act 1077 of 2006, for a final decision on its constitutionality.
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; Martha V. Sáchica of Moncaleano, General Secretary. ***

1. According to the Judgment C-468 of 1997, such control is characterized by (i) prior to the improvement of the treaty, but after approval of Congress and government sanction; (Ii) automatic, it must be sent directly by the President of the Republic to the Constitutional Court within the government sanction six days; (Iii) integral to the extent that the Court must analyze both the formal aspects and materials law and treaty, confronting them with all the constitutional text; (Iv) has force of res judicata; (V) it is a sine qua non for ratification of the relevant agreement; and (vi) a preventive function, because its purpose is to guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution and the compliance with international commitments of the Colombian state. As to control procedural defects that the Court exercises over international treaties and laws that passed, as prescribed in Article 241, paragraph 10 superior, this is addressed both to examine the validity of the representation of the Colombian State in the negotiation and conclusion of instrument and competence of officials in the negotiation and signing of the treaty, as compliance with the rules on the formation of the law passing through Congress. See in the same sense, among many others, Case C-400/98 MP Alejandro Martinez Caballero; C-834/01 MP Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra; C-363/00 and C-718/04 MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis; and C-333/05 MP Jaime Córdoba Triviño.
2. The Attorney General's Office in the concept rendered in the present process warns effect that "the bill 178th 2005 House, 249 2005 Senate filled during the first debate in the House of Representatives on May 30, 2006 , day in which it was approved, and the second debate was discussed and approved on June 7, 2006, according to the background mentioned above. Based on those dates and in accordance with the jurisprudential development, 30 and 7 can not be taken into account for the calculation of the 8 days mentioned in Article 160 of the Constitution, so that the term of reflection in this case, it was only 7 days, within this less than the provisions of the said constitutional provision ". also states "that in the processing of Act 1077 of 2006 made a formal defect irremediable therefore not treated the constitutional requirements regarding the minimum number of days that must be observed between corresponding debates, leading that the unconstitutionality of this law is declared. " In addition the Office "calls attention to the lack of care and thoroughness of the Congress in the ruling of the Law 1077 of 2006, as in Judgment C-309 of 2004, Act 831 of 2003, which had adopted declared unconstitutional the Convention subject of this analysis, for the same reasons that are invoked to request their unenforceability, that is, the breach of the term of 8 days, that Article 160 refers superior ".

3. See among others the judgments C-607/92 MP Alejandro Martinez Caballero, C-203 of 1995 and C-222 1997 MP José Gregorio Hernández Galindo, C-309/04 MP Rodrigo Escobar Gil, C-1153-1105 MP Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra. So in Judgment C-203 of 1995 settled in Judgment C-309 of 2004, the Court stated: "(...) has Article 160 of the Constitution that between the first and the second debate, in the processing of any project , you must mediate a period not less than eight days and between approval of a project in one of the chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other, must pass at least fifteen days. Such terms have been enshrined in order to ensure that members of Congress before voting on the draft to it for consideration have time to study its contents and to assess their suitability for the decision that each take not obey the unthinking impulse 'pupitrazo' rational persuasion but about the scope of the initiative. This gives importance and seriousness to the vote that occurs in successive legislatures. It also seeks public opinion, thanks to the dissemination of the texts already approved during the intervening debates, appears on them and contribute to the better illustration and broader analysis of Congress under greater democratic participation. "
4. In the Judgment C-203/95, the Court ruled on how they should understand the days in the legislative and procedure: "The days that must elapse between the first and the second debate between project approval in a chamber and the initiation of the debate on the other should not necessarily be working, for the consideration of the texts that will be voted may also take place in non-working time, according to availability of each congressman, while in the periods covered, even it case of ordinary days, citizens can express themselves. " (MP José Gregorio Hernández Galindo) This interpretation has been taking up multiple times in the Judgments C-510/96, C-708/96, C-562/97, C-565/97, C-702/99 among others .
5. Judgment C-1153-1105 MP Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra.
6. Judgment C-510 MP 1996. Vladimiro Naranjo Mesa.
7. See Judgment C-203 of 1995 MP Jose Gregorio Hernandez Galindo reiterated in the judgment C-309 MP 2004 Rodrigo Escobar Gil.
8. See, among other Judgments C-737/01 MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett .; C-872/02 MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett AV Judges Sierrra Alfredo Beltran and Jaime Araújo Rentería. Also the Order of September 24, 2003 MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis.
9. In this regard, see Judgment C-737 MP Eduardo Montealegre 2001 Lynett.
10.Ver the Judgment C-872/02 MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett AV Judges Sierrra Alfredo Beltran and Jaime Araújo Rentería.
11. See among others the judgments C-500 of 2001, MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis, C-579, 2001, MP Eduardo Montealegre, with AV: Manuel José Cepeda and Eduardo Montealegre Lynett concerning remediable defects; C-737, 2001, MP Eduardo Montealegre and C-760 Lynett 2001, MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa and Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra.
12. Constitutional Court Judgment C-760 of 2001, MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa and Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, AV: Jaime Araújo Rentería absence of certain vices; SV Rodrigo Escobar Gil, on consequences of certain defects detected and partial SV Clara Inés Vargas Hernández, in relation to the use of all of the law by the defects detected in the process. See also Case C-1248, 2001, MP Rodrigo Escobar Gil, where the Court stated that it is not constitutionally valid file as "curing a defect in the legislative procedure" which actually amount to carry out process steps training of law that were dispensed.
13. Constitutional Court Judgment C-737 of 2001, MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett, where the Court analyzes the process of adoption of laws, the principle of instrumentality of forms, the rule of unity of matter and the scope of Conciliation Commissions. SV partial alfredo Beltran Sierra, on delayed effects of failures inexequiblidad; SV: Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, on the principle of identity, SV: Clara Inés Vargas Hernández, on the principle of identity.
14. Judgment C-737 MP Eduardo Montealegre 2001 Lynett. In the same vein see the 2002 Judgment C- 872 MP Eduardo Montealegre Lynett AV Judges Alfredo Beltran Sierra and Jaime Araújo Rentería.

15. ARTICLE 241. The Constitutional Court is entrusted with safeguarding the integrity and supremacy of the Constitution, strict and precise terms of this article. To this end, it shall perform the following functions: (...) 10. To decide definitively on the constitutionality of international treaties and the laws approving them. To this end, the government will submit to the Court, within six days the sanction of the law. Any citizen may intervene to defend or challenge their constitutionality. If the Constitutional Court declares the Government may make the exchange of letters; otherwise it will not be ratified. When one or more provisions of a multilateral treaty are declared invalid by the Constitutional Court, the President of the Republic can only express the consent formulating the corresponding reservation.
16. See Order of September 24, 2003 MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis.
17. Title VI of the legislative branch (...) CHAPTER 2 OF THE MEETING AND OPERATION.
Article 138. The Congress, in its own right, will meet in regular session for two periods per year, forming a single legislature. The first session will begin on July 20 and end on December 16; the second on March 16 and will end on June 20.
If for any reason he is unable to meet on the dates indicated, it will do so as soon as possible, within the respective periods.
Congress will also meet in extraordinary sessions convened by the Government and for as long as this point.
In the course of them may only engage in the issues that the government submitted to it, without prejudice to the role of political control of its own, which may be exercised at all times.
Article 139. The Congress sessions will be installed and closed jointly and publicly by the President of the Republic, without this ceremony, in the first event, is essential for Congress to exercise its functions legally.
Article 140. The Congress is headquartered in the capital of the Republic.
The cameras may by agreement between them to move their headquarters to another place and, in case of disturbance of public order, may meet at the site designated by the President of the Senate.
Article 141. The Congress shall assemble in one body only for installation and closure of its session, to give possession to the President of the Republic, to receive Heads of State or Government of other countries to choose Controller General of the Republic and Vice where needed to replace the elected (sic) by the people, and decide (sic) on the motion of censure under Article 135.
in such cases the President of the Senate and the the House will be respectively President and Vice President of the Congress.
142. Each House shall elect, for the respective constitutional period, permanent committees that dealt in the first debate draft legislative act or law.
The law shall determine the number of standing committees and their members as well as the materials of which each must deal.
When jointly Permanent Constitutional Commissions in session, the decision shall be the quorum required for each of the committees considered individually.
Article 143. The Senate and House of Representatives may provide that any of the standing committees in session during the recess, to discuss the issues that have been outstanding during the previous period, to conduct studies determine the respective corporation and preparing projects to the Chambers entrust them.
144. The sessions of the Chambers and their standing committees shall be public, with the limitations that may apply in accordance with its rules.
145. The full Congress, the House and its committees may not open sessions or deliberate with less than a quarter of its members. Decisions can only be taken with the support of most members of the respective corporation, unless the Constitution determines a different quorum.
ARTICLE 146.- In the full Congress, in the Chambers and their standing committees, decisions are taken by majority vote of those present, unless the Constitution expressly requires a special majority.
147. The boards of the chambers and their standing committees shall be renewed each year for the term beginning on July 20, and no member may be reappointed within the same constitutional four years.

Article 148. The rules on quorum and majority decision-making also apply to other public corporations of popular election.
ARTICLE 149.- Any meeting of members of Congress, in order to exercise their own legislative branch of government functions, takes place outside the constitutional conditions, is void; to acts performed may not be given any effect, and those involved in the deliberations, be punished according to law.
18. Auto A-088 Alvaro Tafur Galvis MP 2005. SV Jaime Araújo Rentería, Alfredo Beltran Sierra, Jaime Córdoba Triviño, Clara Inés Vargas Hernández. In a similar sense see Car A-089/05 MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa SV Jaime Araújo Rentería, Alfredo Beltran Sierra, Jaime Córdoba Triviño, Clara Inés Vargas Hernández. Jaime Araújo Rentería AV and A-207/05 MP Rodrigo Escobar Gil SV Jaime Araújo Rentería, Alfredo Beltran Sierra, Jaime Córdoba Triviño, Clara Inés Vargas Hernández. In the last of those orders it noted: "In the opinion of the Corporation, both irregularities and constitutional defects can be corrected redoing what was done improperly formed, from the return of the act to the authority that issued them . In the specific case of constitutional vices, it recognizes this paragraph of Article 241 of the Constitution, while in the case of irregularities, such a possibility is provided for in Articles 2-2 5, 79-5, 202 and 203 of Act 5 of 1992.
However, it could be argued that this conclusion is not correct, because when it comes to constitutional requirements or requirements for the formation of the law, as is the corresponding notice of voting, the omission compliance is not likely to be remedied, since it is the violation of the constitutional prohibition involving the incompetence of Congress to pass the law.
This position is not shared by the Corporation, as this would ignore the attribution recognized by the Constituent to the Constitutional Court, in its role as guardian of the supremacy and integrity of the Constitution, could return to the authority I uttered the act under control when you find constitutional procedural defects that can be remedied. Otherwise, that is, excluding the constitutional requirements for the formation of the law, of the possibility of being amended, would lead to sacrificing the principle of constitutional supremacy that according to the principles of consistent interpretation and effect useful (CP art. 4th) , giving prevalence ordered the legal meaning of a constitutional provision, in this case provided for in paragraph of Article 241 of the Superior text, in the sense that having full legal effect ".
19. Judgment C-607 MP 1992 Alejandro Martinez Caballero.
20. Judgment C-607 MP 1992 Alejandro Martinez Caballero: where in the relevant separate noted. "12 That between 19 and 11 December 1991 'median' seven (7) calendar days, namely on 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 and between 22 and 14 January 1992 'median' also only seven (7) calendar days, ie on 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21.
- 13. that result in each of the Houses of Congress of the Republic lacked a day for the bill then it is properly processed.
- 14. It should be noted, also, that the article 5 of the Regulations of Congress interpreted the expression 'irremediable vices of procedure of the Constitution', establishing this qualification only for two extreme scenarios that are not presented in this case: when the action, produced by a meeting of Congress for the purpose of exercising legislative functions, 'takes place outside the constitutional conditions'. And, according to clause 2 of that article, in the case of 'infringed the fundamental constitutional guarantees. " Neither of these two grounds, repeats, were presented at the proceedings of the 1st Act 1992, nor were invoked by the plaintiffs.
- 15. That this Court considers that such a defect is remedied and so, so the standard will be sent to the author thereof to amend the failure observed, within the period prescribed in the paragraphs of this Auto and in priority to any other point that is a consideration. "

21. See Judgment C-002 of 1996, MP José Gregorio Hernández Galindo where the relevant separate noted: "The advance analysis leads to the conclusion that, given the respective procedure in the House of Representatives, constitutional law was violated, because time elapsed between the first debate -given the first (1st) of June 1994 and the second in the Plenary of the House -ocurrido the eight (8) June of the same year was only six (6) of the eight (8) days that have had to mediate, under Article 160 of the Constitution.
Regard, the Court has stated: (...) (Cf. Constitutional Court Plenary Chamber Judgment C-203 of 11 May 1995...).
To this must be added the days that must elapse, according to what is established in the Constitution, they must be full days, so, for your computer, can not be counted on days when there were the respective debates.
Considered the Court, in order of June 7 this year, the vice in question was excusable, since it is possible to repeat the second debate in the House, given that, for projects of common laws and in particular those relating to the approval of international treaties, does not require approval occurs during a single term.
Therefore, giving effect to paragraph of Article 241 of the Constitution, the Plenary Chamber ordered that the project be returned to Congress to be approved in its second reading in the House of Representatives. ".
22. Rodrigo Escobar Gil MP.
23. In that judgment also stated in effect as the basis for the declaration of unconstitutionality of the fact that the relevant bill was submitted to five debates, but had reopened the debate in accordance with applicable regulations.
24. MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa.
25. MP Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra.
26. MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa SPV Jaime Araújo Rentería.
27. MP Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa SPV Jaime Araújo Rentería.

Related Laws