Machine Translation of "Act 1108 2006" (Colombia)

Act 1108 2006

Original Language Title: LEY 1108 de 2006

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Unlimited Searches
Weekly Updates on New Laws
Access to 5,345,848 Global Laws from 110 Countries
View the Original Law Side-by-Side with the Translation

Subscribe Now for only USD$40 per month.

1108 OF 2006

(December 27)

Official Journal No. 46.835 of 7 December 2007

CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

By means of which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism" is approved, signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) of June two thousand two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

Vigency Notes Summary

COLOMBIA CONGRESS

Having regard to the text of the "-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on three (3) June of two thousand two (2002), at the thirty-second regular session of the Assembly General of the Organization of American States, which to the letter says: (to be transcribed: attached photocopy of the full text of the international instrument mentioned).

Inter-American Convention against Interamerican Terrorism

Convention Against Terrorism

Inter-American Counter-Terrorism Convenor

Convention interamericaine contre le terrorisme

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM STATES PARTY TO THIS CONVENTION, BEARING IN MIND THE PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF THE CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES AND THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS;

CONSIDERING that terrorism constitutes a serious threat to democratic values and to international peace and security and is a cause of deep concern for all Member States;

REAFFIRMING the need to adopt effective measures in the inter-American system to prevent, punish, and eliminate terrorism through broader cooperation;

RECOGNISING that serious economic damage to states that may result from terrorist acts are one of the factors that underline the need for cooperation and the urgency of efforts to eradicate terrorism;

REAFFIRMING the commitment of States to prevent, combat, punish and eliminate terrorism, and TAKING INTO ACCOUNT Resolution RC.23/RES. 1/01 rev. 1 corr.

1, "Strengthening hemispheric cooperation to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism", adopted at the Twenty-Third Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers, HAVE AGREED THE FOLLOWING:

ARTICLE 1. OBJECT AND PURPOSE.

This Convention aims to prevent, punish and eliminate terrorism. To this end, the States Parties undertake to take the necessary measures and to strengthen cooperation between them, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.

ARTICLE 2. APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS.

1. For the purposes of this Convention, "crime" means those established in the following international instruments:

(a) Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Aircraft Seizure, signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970.

(b) Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Acts against the Security of Civil Aviation, signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971.

(c) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, approved by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1973.

(d) International Convention against the taking of hostages, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 17 December 1979.

(e) Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, signed in Vienna on 3 March 1980.

f) Protocol on the repression of unlawful acts of violence at airports providing services to international civil aviation, complementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Acts against the Security of Civil Aviation, signed in Montreal on 24 February 1988.

g) Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988 .*

(h) Protocol on the repression of unlawful acts against the security of fixed platforms located on the continental shelf, made in Rome on 10 March 1988 .*

(i) International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Approved by the United Nations General Assembly on 15 December 1997.

(j) International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, approved by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1999.

Effective Case-law

2. When depositing its instrument of ratification to this Convention, the State which is not part of one or more of the international instruments listed in paragraph 1 of this Article may declare that, in the application of this Convention to that Convention, State Party shall not be deemed to be included in that paragraph. The declaration shall cease in effect if the instrument enters into force for that State Party, which shall notify the depositary of this fact.

Effective Case-law

3. Where a State Party ceases to be a party to one of the international instruments listed in paragraph 1 of this Article, it may make a statement in respect of that instrument, as provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.

ARTICLE 3. INTERNAL MEASURES.

Each State Party, in accordance with its constitutional provisions, shall endeavour to be a party to the international instruments listed in Article 2 of which it is not yet a party and to take the necessary measures for implementation. (b) the effective implementation of the law, including the establishment of criminal penalties for offences referred to therein in their domestic legislation.

ARTICLE 4. MEASURES TO PREVENT, COMBAT AND ERADICATE TERRORIST FINANCING.

1. Each State Party shall, to the extent that it has not done so, establish a legal and administrative regime to prevent, combat and eradicate the financing of terrorism and to achieve effective international cooperation in this respect. must include:

(a) A broad internal regulatory and supervisory regime for banks, other financial institutions and other entities considered to be particularly likely to be used to finance terrorist activities. This scheme will highlight requirements regarding customer identification, record keeping and communication of suspicious or unusual transactions.

(b) Measures for the detection and surveillance of cross-border movements of cash, bearer-negotiable instruments and other relevant securities movements. These measures shall be subject to safeguards to ensure the proper use of information and shall not prevent the legitimate movement of capital.

(c) Measures to ensure that competent authorities engaged in combating crimes established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 have the capacity to cooperate and exchange information at national and international levels; in accordance with the conditions laid down in domestic law. To this end, each State Party shall establish and maintain a financial intelligence unit serving as a national center for the collection, analysis and dissemination of relevant information on money laundering and terrorist financing. Each State Party shall inform the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States of the designated authority as its financial intelligence unit.

2. For the purposes of applying paragraph 1 of this Article, States Parties shall use as guidelines the recommendations developed by regional or international specialised entities, in particular the Financial Action Group. International (FATF) and, where appropriate, the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), the Caribbean Financial Action Group (GAFIC) and the South American Financial Action Task Force (GAFISUD).

ARTICLE 5. SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION OF FUNDS OR OTHER ASSETS.

1. Each State Party shall, in accordance with the procedures laid down in its domestic law, take the necessary measures to identify, freeze, seize and, where appropriate, confiscate the funds or other goods constituting the the product of the commission or intended to finance or have provided or financed the commission of any of the offences established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention.

2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be applicable in respect of offences committed both within and outside the jurisdiction of the State Party.

ARTICLE 6. MONEY LAUNDERING DETERMINANTS.

1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that its criminal law relating to the crime of money laundering includes crimes established in the international instruments listed as determining crimes of money laundering. in Article 2 of this Convention.

The money laundering determinants referred to in paragraph 1 shall include those committed both within and outside the jurisdiction of the State Party.

ARTICLE 7. BORDER COOPERATION.

1. States Parties shall, in accordance with their respective internal legal and administrative regimes, promote cooperation and exchange of information in order to improve border and customs control measures to detect and prevent the international movement of terrorists and the trafficking of arms or other materials intended to support terrorist activities.

2. In this regard, they shall promote cooperation and exchange of information to improve their controls on the issuance of travel and identity documents and to prevent their falsification, illegal alteration or fraudulent use.

3. Such measures shall be carried out without prejudice to international commitments applicable to the free movement of persons and to trade facilitation.

ARTICLE 8. COOPERATION BETWEEN COMPETENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES.

States Parties will cooperate closely, in accordance with their respective internal legal and administrative systems, in order to strengthen effective law enforcement and to combat crimes established in international instruments. listed in Article 2.

In this regard, they shall establish and improve, if necessary, the channels of communication between their competent authorities in order to facilitate the secure and rapid exchange of information on all aspects of the offences established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention.

ARTICLE 9. MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE.

States Parties shall provide each other with the broadest and most expeditious legal assistance in relation to the prevention, investigation and prosecution of crimes established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 and the processes related to these, in accordance with the applicable international agreements. In the absence of such agreements, States Parties shall provide such assistance expeditiously in accordance with their domestic law.

ARTICLE 10. TRANSFER OF PERSONS IN CUSTODY.

1. The person who is being detained or serving time in the territory of a State Party and whose presence is requested in another State Party for the purpose of providing evidence or identification or to assist in obtaining necessary evidence for the investigation or prosecution of offences established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 may be carried out if the following conditions are met:

a) The person freely gives their consent, once informed, and (b) Both States agree, subject to the conditions they deem appropriate.

2. For the purposes of this Article:

(a) The State to which the person is transferred shall be authorized and obliged to keep it in detention, unless the State from which it was transferred requests or otherwise authorizes otherwise.

(b) The State to which the person is transferred shall without delay comply with its obligation to return it to the custody of the State from which it was transferred as agreed in advance or otherwise by the competent authorities of both States.

c. The State to which the person is transferred may not require the State from which it was transferred to initiate extradition procedures for its return.

d. Account shall be taken of the length of time the person has been detained in the State to which he has been transferred for the purpose of discounting the penalty to be fulfilled in the State from which he was transferred.

3. Unless the State Party from which a person is to be transferred in accordance with this Article agrees, that person, regardless of nationality, shall not be prosecuted, detained or subjected to any other restrictions of his or her nationality. personal freedom in the territory of the State to which it is transferred in relation to acts or convictions prior to its departure from the territory of the State from which it was transferred.

ARTICLE 11. INAPPLICABILITY OF THE POLITICAL CRIME EXCEPTION.

For the purposes of extradition or mutual legal assistance, none of the crimes established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 shall be deemed to be a political offence or a connection with a political offence or a crime inspired by political motives.

Accordingly, an extradition request or mutual legal assistance may not be denied for the sole reason that it relates to a political offence or a related crime with a political offence or a political motive.

ARTICLE 12. DENIAL OF REFUGEE STATUS.

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic and international law, to ensure that the refugee status is not recognized to the persons in respect of which the reasonable grounds to consider that they have committed a crime established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention.

ARTICLE 13. REFUSAL OF ASYLUM.

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic and international law, in order to ensure that asylum is not granted to persons for whom there are reasonable grounds for consider that they have committed a crime established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention.

ARTICLE 14. NON-DISCRIMINATION.

None of the provisions of this Convention shall be construed as the imposition of an obligation to provide mutual legal assistance if the requested State Party has reasonable grounds to believe that the request has been made with the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion or whether the application would cause injury to the situation of that person for any of these reasons.

ARTICLE 15. HUMAN RIGHTS.

1. The measures taken by the States Parties in accordance with this Convention shall be carried out with full respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

2. Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as undermining other rights and obligations of States and persons under international law, in particular the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the Organization of American States, International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law and International Refugee Law.

3. Any person who is in detention or in respect of which any measure is taken or is in accordance with this Convention shall be guaranteed a fair treatment, including the enjoyment of all rights and guarantees in accordance with the Convention. legislation of the State in whose territory it is located and the relevant provisions of International Law.

ARTICLE 16. Training.

1. States Parties shall promote technical cooperation and training programs at national, bilateral, subregional, and regional levels and within the framework of the Organization of American States to strengthen the national institutions responsible for compliance with the obligations arising out of this Convention.

2. Member States shall also promote, as appropriate, technical cooperation and training programs with other regional and international organizations engaged in activities related to the purposes of this Convention.

ARTICLE 17. COOPERATION THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES.

States Parties shall foster the widest cooperation in the field of the relevant organs of the Organization of American States, including the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE), in matters relating to the subject and the purposes of this Convention.

ARTICLE 18. QUERY BETWEEN THE PARTS.

1. Member States shall hold regular consultation meetings, as appropriate, with a view to facilitating:

(a) The full implementation of this Convention, including the consideration of matters of interest to it identified by the States Parties, and (b) the exchange of information and experiences on effective ways and methods for prevent, detect, investigate and punish terrorism.

2. The Secretary-General shall convene a consultation meeting of the States Parties after receiving the tenth instrument of ratification.

Without prejudice to this, the States Parties may carry out any consultations they deem appropriate.

3. States Parties may request the relevant organs of the Organization of American States, including CICTE, to facilitate the consultations referred to in the preceding paragraphs and to provide other forms of assistance in respect of the application. of this Convention.

ARTICLE 19. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION.

Nothing in this Convention shall entitle a State Party to exercise its jurisdiction in the territory of another State Party or to perform in the functions that are exclusively reserved for the authorities of that other State. Part by its internal law.

ARTICLE 20. DEPOSITARY.

The original instrument of this Convention, whose texts in Spanish, French, English and Portuguese are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.

ARTICLE 21. SIGNATURE AND RATIFICATION.

1. This Convention is open for signature by all Member States of the Organization of American States.

2. This Convention is subject to ratification by the signatory States in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures.

The instruments of ratification will be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.

ARTICLE 22. ENTRY INTO FORCE.

1. This Convention shall enter into force on the 30th day from the date on which the sixth instrument of ratification of the Convention has been deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.

2. For each State ratifying the Convention after the deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification, the Convention shall enter into force on the 30th day from the date on which the relevant instrument has been deposited by that State.

ARTICLE 23. COMPLAINT.

1. Any State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States. The complaint shall take effect one year after the date on which the notification has been received by the Secretary-General of the Organization.

2. Such a complaint shall not affect any request for information or assistance made during the period of validity of the Convention for the reporting State.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., July 30, 2002

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

(Fdo.), ANDRES PASTRANA ARANGO

The Minister of Foreign Affairs (Fdo.),

Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Approve the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on three (3) June of two thousand two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on three (3) June of two thousand two (2002), at the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, which is approved by Article 1 of this Law, will force the country from the date on which the link is perfected. international regarding the same.

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

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., a los ...

Presented to the honorable Congress of the Republic by the Minister of the Interior and Justice, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

SABAS PRETELT DE LA VEGA,

CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON,

Minister of the Interior and Justice. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Organization of American States Washington, D. C.

Secretary General Certifico that the attached document, is a faithful and accurate copy of the authentic texts in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French of the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on 3 June 2002, at the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly, and that the signed texts of these originals are deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. This certification is issued at the request of the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the Organization of American States.

June 18, 2002

JEAN MICHEL ARRIGHI

Director Department of International Law

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., July 30, 2002

Approved.

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

(Fdo.), ANDRES PASTRANA ARANGO

The Minister of Foreign Affairs (Fdo.),

Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.

DECRETA:

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

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

NANCY PATRICIA GUTIERREZ CASTANEDA.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

EMILIO RAMON OTERO DAJUD.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

OSCAR GROVE PALACIO.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

ANGELINO LIZANO RIVERA.

In accordance with the provisions of Auto 232/2007 of 5 September 2007, Expediente LAT-300, the full room of the Constitutional Court, which in its part motivates it:

" (...) it should be noted that the presidential sanction, as it refers to the same approving act subject to analysis, will not contract the change in the identification of the law. In this sense, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, when exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, will retain the Law number 1108 of December 27 of 2006. This is because, as this corporation has maintained, the underhealing of a vice in the legislative process by the Congress does not contract any modification in relation to the nominal identification of the bill and the approval law. As a result, Law 1108 of December 27, 2006, sanctioned by which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism" is approved, signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on 3 June 2002, at the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, retaining their initial numbers and dates.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Communicate and comply.

Execute, upon revision of the Constitutional Court, in accordance with article 241-10 of the Political Constitution.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., at 7 December 2007.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Minister of the Interior and Justice,

CARLOS HOLGUIN SARDI.

The Foreign Minister,

FERNANDO ARAUJO PERDOMO.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

GENERAL SECRETARY

CC-DC 82

Bogotá, D. C., twenty-six (26) September of two thousand seven (2007)

Doctor

OSCAR GROVE PALACIO

President Honorable House of Representatives City Reference:

2007 LAT-300-Auto 232 File

Self-decision communication

Respected doctor:

On the date, complying with the provisions of Sala Plena 232 of 2007, dated 5 September of the year in progress, it is appropriate this Secretariat to put in its knowledge what has been decided in the providence in mention. For which the text of Law 1108 of 2006 is attached to this communication, by means of which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism" is approved, Bridgetown, Barbados, on three (3) June two thousand (2002), at the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

Carefully,

MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ,

General Secretariat.

Attached:

-Copy of the 2007 auto 232 to forty-four (44) folios.

-2006 Law 1108 in fifteen (15) folios.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

-Full Room-

AUTO 232 OF 2007

Reference:

LAT File-300 Constitutionality Review of Law 1108 of December 27, 2006, by means of which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism" is approved, the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) of June two thousand two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

Rapporteur Magistrate:

Doctor

Jaime Cordoba Trivino.

Bogotá, D. C., five (5) September of two thousand seven (2007).

The Full Court of the Constitutional Court, in exercise of its constitutional and legal powers, in particular those provided for in Article 241, numeral 10, of the Political Constitution, has The following Auto, within the process of revision of Law 1108 of December 27, 2006, by means of which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism" is approved, subscribed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on three (3) June of two thousand two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

I. TEXT OF THE RULE

The law object of analysis, which was published in the Official Journal 46.494 of 27 December 2006, is as follows:

1108 DE 2006

(December 27)

The Congress of Colombia, having regard to the text of the "-American Convention against Terrorism," signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on three (3) June of two thousand two (2002), in the thirty-second regular period of Sessions of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, which to the letter reads: (to be transcribed: attached photocopy of the full text of the international instrument mentioned).

Inter-American Convention against Terrorism

Interamerican Convention Against Terrorism

Inter-American Counter-Terrorism Convenor

Convention interamericaine contre le terrorisme

CONSIDERING that terrorism constitutes a serious threat to democratic values and to international peace and security and is a cause of deep concern for all Member States;

REAFFIRMING the need to adopt effective measures in the inter-American system to prevent, punish, and eliminate terrorism through broader cooperation;

REAFFIRMING the commitment of States to prevent, combat, punish and eliminate terrorism, and TAKING INTO ACCOUNT resolution RC.23/RES. 1/01 rev. 1 corr.

1, "Strengthening hemispheric cooperation to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism", adopted at the Twenty-Third Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers, HAVE AGREED THE FOLLOWING:

Item 1o

Object and purpose

Article 2o

Applicable International Instruments

1. For the purposes of this Convention, "crime" means those established in the following international instruments:

(a) Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Aircraft Seizure, signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970.

(b) Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Acts against the Security of Civil Aviation, signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971.

(c) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, approved by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1973.

(d) International Convention against the taking of hostages, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 17 December 1979.

(e) Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, signed in Vienna on 3 March 1980.

(g) Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

(h) Protocol on the repression of unlawful acts against the security of fixed platforms located on the continental shelf, made in Rome on 10 March 1988.

(i) International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Approved by the United Nations General Assembly on 15 December 1997.

(j) International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, approved by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1999.

2. When depositing its instrument of ratification to this Convention, the State which is not a party to one or more of the international instruments listed in paragraph 1 of this Article may declare that, in the application of this Convention to that Convention, State Party shall not be deemed to be included in that paragraph. The declaration shall cease in effect if the instrument enters into force for that State Party, which shall notify the depositary of this fact.

Article 3o

Internal measures

Each State Party, in accordance with its constitutional provisions, shall endeavour to be a party to the international instruments listed in Article 2 of which it is not yet a party and to take the necessary measures for the implementation of the (b) the effective implementation of the law, including the establishment of criminal penalties for offences referred to therein in their domestic legislation.

Article 4o

Measures to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate Terrorist Financing

(c) Measures to ensure that the competent authorities engaged in combating crimes established in the international instruments listed in Article 2o have the capacity to cooperate and exchange information at national and international levels; in accordance with the conditions laid down in domestic law. To this end, each State Party shall establish and maintain a financial intelligence unit serving as a national center for the collection, analysis and dissemination of relevant information on money laundering and terrorist financing. Each State Party shall inform the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States of the designated authority as its financial intelligence unit.

Article 5o

Embargo and forfeiture of funds or other assets

2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be applicable in respect of offences committed both within and outside the jurisdiction of the State Party.

Article 6o

Money Laundering Determinants

The money laundering determinants referred to in paragraph 1 shall include those committed both within and outside the jurisdiction of the State Party.

Article 7o

Border Cooperation

3. Such measures shall be carried out without prejudice to international commitments applicable to the free movement of persons and to trade facilitation.

Article 8o

Cooperation between competent law enforcement authorities

States Parties shall cooperate closely, in accordance with their respective internal legal and administrative systems, in order to strengthen effective law enforcement and to combat crimes established in international instruments. listed in Article 2o.

Article 9o

Mutual Legal Assistance

Article 10

Moving people into custody

1. The person who is being detained or serving time in the territory of a State Party and whose presence is requested in another State Party for the purpose of providing evidence or identification or to assist in obtaining necessary evidence for the investigation or prosecution of offences established in the international instruments listed in Article 2o may be transferred if the following conditions are met:

a) The person freely gives their consent, once informed, and (b) Both States agree, subject to the conditions they deem appropriate.

2. For the purposes of this Article:

(a) The State to which the person is transferred shall be authorized and obliged to keep it in detention, unless the State from which it was transferred requests or otherwise authorizes otherwise.

(c) The State to which the person is transferred may not require the State from which it was transferred to initiate extradition procedures for its return.

(d) Account shall be taken of the time taken by the person in the State to whom he has been transferred for the purpose of discounting the penalty to be fulfilled in the State from which he was transferred.

Article 11

Inapplicability of the political offense exception

For the purposes of extradition or mutual legal assistance, none of the crimes established in the international instruments listed in Article 2o shall be deemed to be a political offence or related offence with a political offence or a crime inspired by political motives.

Article 12

Denial of refugee status

Article 13

Denial of asylum

Article 14

Nondiscrimination

Article 15

Human Rights

1. The measures taken by the States Parties in accordance with this Convention shall be carried out with full respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Article 16

Training

Article 17

Cooperation through the Organization of American States

Article 18

Query between the Parties

1. Member States shall hold regular consultation meetings, as appropriate, with a view to facilitating:

2. The Secretary-General shall convene a consultation meeting of the States Parties after receiving the tenth instrument of ratification.

Without prejudice to this, the States Parties may carry out any consultations they deem appropriate.

Article 19

Jurisdiction exercise

Article 20

Depositary

Article 21

Signature and Ratification

1. This Convention is open for signature by all Member States of the Organization of American States.

2. This Convention is subject to ratification by the signatory States in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures.

The instruments of ratification will be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.

Article 22

Entry into effect

Article 23

Reporting

2. Such a complaint shall not affect any request for information or assistance made during the period of validity of the Convention for the reporting State.

Organization of American States Secretariat General Washington, D. C. Certifico that the attached document, is a faithful and accurate copy of the authentic texts in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French of the Inter-American Convention against the Terrorism, signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on 3 June 2002, at the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly, and that the signed texts of these originals are deposited with the Secretariat General of the Organization of American States. This certification is issued at the request of the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the Organization of American States.

June 18, 2002

JEAN MICHEL ARRIGHI

Director Department of International Law

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., July 30, 2002

Approved.

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

(Fdo.), ANDRES PASTRANA ARANGO

The Minister of Foreign Affairs (Fdo.),

GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ DE SOTO.

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Approve the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on three (3) June of two thousand two (2002), in the thirty-second ordinary period of Sessions of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of the 7th Act of 1944, the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism,, signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on three (3) June of two thousand two (2002), at the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, which is approved by Article 1 of this Law, will force the country from the date on which the link is perfected international regarding the same.

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

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., a los ...

Presented to the honorable Congress of the Republic by the Minister of the Interior and Justice, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Minister of the Interior and Justice,

SABAS PRETELT DE LA VEGA.

Minister of Foreign Affairs,

CAROLINA BOAT ISAKSON.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá, D. C., July 30, 2002

Approved.

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

(Fdo.), ANDRES PASTRANA ARANGO

The Minister of Foreign Affairs (Fdo.),

GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ DE SOTO.

DECRETA:

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

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

DILIAN FRANCSCA TORO TORRES.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

EMILIO RAMON OTERO DAJUD.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

ALFREDO APE NECK BAUTE.

The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives,

ANGELINO LIZANO RIVERA.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Communicate and comply.

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

Dada in Bogotá, D. C., at December 27, 2006.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Minister of the Interior and Justice,

CARLOS HOLGUIN SARDI.

The Foreign Minister,

MARIA CONSOLATION ARAUJO CASTRO.

II. INTERVENTIONS

2.1. Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Citizen Gaia Hernández Palacios, special proxy for the Foreign Ministry, intervened in this process to defend the constitutionality of the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism (hereinafter referred to as "the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism"). Convention) and its approval law.

To this end, he first explained the conditions for signing the Treaty, for which he pointed out that this instrument, adopted at the thirty-second session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, was signed by the then Ambassador of Colombia to that body, in accordance with the full powers conferred on him by the President of the Republic. After this action, on July 30, 2002, the president gave executive approval to the aforementioned instrument and ordered that he be submitted to the consideration of the Congress.

Assortment the corresponding legislative procedure, was issued the Law of approval 898 of July 21, 2004, a rule declared inexequable by this Corporation for procedural vices in its formation, according to decided in the 2005 C-333 statement. Consequently, on August 18, 2005, the National Government again presented to the Senate the international instrument, which was passed by the law subject to examination.

Regarding the material aspect of the Convention, the Ministry warned that in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, the need to create multilateral tools to attack the international community has become more relevant in the international arena. terrorism, measures which have been put forward in the framework of cooperation between States. Therefore, the agreement of the countries of the region embodied in the Convention is in line with the constitutional principles that order international relations. From this perspective, the Treaty to strengthen relations with other countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, in accordance with the Political Constitution. The OAS, which plays a decisive role in the security of the hemisphere, has been strengthening the decisions taken in the framework of the Organization of American States. Likewise, they are considered necessary actions, support the OAS in advancing the work aimed at strengthening the collective security system in the hemisphere, and the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE). Convention under the study of constitutionality is intended to prevent, punish and eliminate terrorism, as well as to strengthen the mechanisms of cooperation between States Parties. "

The Ministry points out, in the same way, that the Convention does not make a reference to an express classification of the crime of terrorism, but refers to the conduct mentioned as such in the international instruments described in Article 2o of the Treaty. Thus, the intervention offers a relation of these agreements, as a basis in which it can be concluded that for the Colombian case the Convention for the repression of the illicit seizure of Aircraft of 1970, the Convention is currently in force for the repression of illegal acts against the security of civil aviation of 1971, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Persons Internationally Protected, including the Diplomatic Agents of 1973, the Convention The Convention on the Physical Protection of the European Union against the taking of hostages in 1979 The Protocol on the repression of unlawful acts of violence at airports providing services to civil aviation in 1988, which is complementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Acts against the Security of the civil aviation, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 1988 and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism in 1999. On this particular, the intervener emphasizes that the " respects the decision of the States to become part of the international instruments cited, and leaves each Party free to establish the regulation of the measures, in accordance with their internal regulations ".

By way of conclusion, the intervener considers that the Convention on the subject of analysis is inserted in the international and national context interested in the fight against terrorism. This objective is developed through actions aimed at protecting fundamental constitutional goods, such as human dignity, peaceful coexistence and the validity of a just order, as well as the rights to life and peace. In the same way, he insists that the international " harmonizes with the constitutional postulates of respect for national sovereignty and recognition of the principles of international law accepted by Colombia.

(...)

, as it has been subscribed in observance of the autonomy and sovereignty of the States, as well as of the constitutional precepts established for the Colombian State's consent forms to be obligated in this type of instruments;

and is consistent with the constitutional guidelines under which cooperation and integration with the States of America and the Caribbean is privileged. Similarly, its provisions are compatible with the commitments made by Colombia at both bilateral, regional and multilateral levels in the fight against terrorism. "

2.2. Ministry of the Interior and Justice

Citizen Fernando Gomez Mejía, Director of Legal Order of the Ministry of Interior and Justice, submitted a written justification for the constitutionality of Law 1108/06. To this end, he described the legislative process of the bill that preceded the analyzed rule and concluded that the process had been adjusted to the precepts of the Political Charter.

As to the material aspect of the international instrument, after exposing its history, which demonstrate the intrinsic relationship between the Convention and the efforts of the countries of the hemisphere to combat terrorism;

the Ministry highlights how the Convention is compatible with the constitutional provisions, as soon as it prescribes the validity of national sovereignty, the self-determination of peoples, the integration with Latin America and the Caribbean and the recognition of the principles of international rights as bases of the foreign relations of the Colombian State.

In the opinion of the Ministry of Interior, " the adoption of measures aimed at preventing, sanctioning and eradicating the phenomenon of terrorism from the hemispheric sphere harmonizes with the achievement of the essential ends of the consecrated State. in Article 2 Superior, in particular with the guarantee of effectiveness of the principles, rights and duties enshrined in the Charter, the defense of national independence, the maintenance of territorial integrity, the assurance of peaceful coexistence and the validity of a fair order. | | In turn, the implementation of mechanisms to combat terrorism is in the protection of fundamental rights such as respect for human dignity, the right to life, the right to peace and free locomotion, among others. | | In the same sense, it gives mechanisms to the authorities of the Republic to deal with the terrorist threat, as a tool for the realization of the rights, guarantees and duties enshrined in the Charter. " These purposes, in the case of the intervener, demonstrate the compatibility between the international instrument and the Constitution.

2.3. Ombudsman

The citizen Karin Irina Kuhfeldt Salazar, Ombudsman for Constitutional Affairs of the Ombudsman's Office, has written proof of the constitutionality of the standard subject to study. To this end, it sets out arguments similar to those presented by the other speakers, related to the harmony between the purposes that inspire the Convention and the principles that underpin the international relations of the State. In particular, the Ombudsman emphasizes that the criminal conduct of the Treaty corresponds to several penal types included in the internal order. Among them, the Penal Code in force establishes the crimes of homicide, with its causes of punitive aggravation; hostage taking; kidnapping, which also applies causals of aggravation; seizure and diversion of aircraft or means of transport collective; laundering of assets; concerto for criminal activities; training for illicit activities; terrorism; administration of resources related to terrorist activities; threats; instigation of crime; disturbance in transportation service collective and official; sinister or damage of ship; panic; tenure, manufacture and traffic in dangerous substances or objects; use or launch of dangerous substances or objects; and traffic, transport and possession of radioactive materials or nuclear substances.

In specific relation to the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention on the modalities of cooperation between States for the prevention, combating and eradication of forms of financing of terrorism, the Ombudsman notes that the Measures there enunciated " respect the constitutional order, especially in respect of the right to freedom of enterprise, because the application of the there willing in nothing affects the normal development of the activity financial and banking. (...) However, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to warn of the State's duty to guarantee the habeas data. The collection, processing and circulation of personal information in data banks and in archives of entities must respect the rights to privacy and the good name. This entity (...) has on the need for Colombia to adopt a personal data protection statute that guarantees the effective protection of these citizens ' rights. In the absence of such regulation, the Ombudsman considers that for the proper interpretation and application of this provision of the Convention, the principles of freedom, necessity, truthfulness, integrity, incorporation, purpose, utility, must be respected. restricted circulation, expiration and individuality, specified by the constitutional case law "[1].

With respect to the provisions of Articles 5o and 6o of the international instrument, essentially aimed at prescribing the obligation of States Parties to implement procedures to counteract the use and management of related economic resources. The intervener considers that the development of these measures is valid as long as they are executed, as indicated in the Convention, in accordance with the rules of the internal legislation, in particular the provisions of the constitutional. Similarly, this conditioning is predicable in the case of Articles 7o, 8o and 9o of the Convention, related to the promotion of cooperation and the secure exchange of information between the authorities responsible for the pursuit, investigation, prosecution and punishment of crimes and offenders of terrorist activities.

In relation to Article 10 of the Convention, which regulates the transfer of persons detained or sentenced from one State to another, in order to carry out trials in processes for crimes constituting terrorism, the Ombudsman maintains that " these provisions respect Articles 29 and 35 of the Charter, because they guarantee the right to due process and do not exceed the requirements for the provenance of extradition. | | In relation to the possibility of processing the person transferred to the territory of the State Party for acts or convictions prior to his departure from the territory of the State since he was transferred, only with the consent of the latter, the numeral Article 10 respects the sovereignty of the Colombian State provided for in Article 9 of the Constitution. "

Article 11 of the Convention, which prohibits the consideration of acts constituting terrorism as political crimes or crimes related to them, is a rule that, in the opinion of the Office of the Ombudsman is in accordance with the Political Charter not only because it guarantees the right to justice for victims because it prevents the criminal sanction from being generated by the mistaken configuration of the conduct, but also respects the international law of the sovereignty of each State, the principle of This is the only way to ensure that the rights of the citizens of the European Union are respected. defense. " These considerations are, in general, equally applicable in respect of the constitutionality of Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, which prohibit the provision of refugee status and the right of asylum to persons in respect of whom there are serious grounds for considering that they have committed conduct established in Article 2 of the Treaty as terrorist activities.

Finally, the intervener considers that the clauses provided for in the other rules of the Convention are fully compatible with the Political Charter, while reaffirming the principles of international law accepted by the Colombian constitutional, they are compatible with fundamental rights and allow in the effective exercise of the sovereignty of the State.

2.4. Attorney General of the Nation

Citizen Mario Iguaran Arana, Attorney General of the Nation, intervenes before the Court in order to request that the constitutionality of the reference standard be declared. To this end, it presents a detailed analysis of each of the provisions that make up the international instrument. In this sense, this Corporation will synthesize the central aspects of the intervention.

For the Attorney General, the objectives and purposes of the Convention (Art. 1o), they are not only compatible with the Charter, but they constitute a development of the Charter, in several of its most important points. On the one hand, terrorism is a seriously damaging practice of fundamental rights, principles and values founded on the constitutional order, which is why the struggle of the State against the phenomena that carry it and the In order to guarantee a peaceful and democratic scenario in which the rights are fully guaranteed and the axiological postulates on which the Colombian State is founded can be realized. From this perspective, instruments such as the one proposed are relevant if it is recognized that the fight against terrorism cannot be undertaken with an optimal degree of effectiveness if the international community does not have the support, which International organisations and instruments should be given a clear commitment in this respect.

Cooperation in this field is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, given the transnational infrastructure with which terrorist organizations are today counting, making it difficult for States to combat them outside their own borders.

The criminalization of acts constituting terrorism (Art. 2o), are in the case of the intervener in accordance with the principle of legality, given that each of the international instruments provided for therein stipulate the specific conditions constituting the crime of terrorism.

In addition, it should be noted that such conduct found full adequacy in the type provided for in Article 343 of the Criminal Code.

This rule, although it provides for an open criminal classification, is in accordance with the Constitution, since the dynamic character of the conduct, its plurioffensive nature, the sophistication of the methods used for its commission and the serious affectation of constitutional rights derived from unlawful conduct [2].

As regards the measures provided for in the Convention to prevent, combat and eradicate the financing of terrorism (Art. 4o), the Office of the Prosecutor General considers its exilibility " as long as its application is in a manner respectful of the constitutional rights and principles, as it was pointed out in respect of the measure referred to in (a) of the same In spite of having a constitutionally legitimate purpose, the implementation of this measure can bring with it the limitation of other rights protected by the Political Charter, as in this case, the freedom of movement, the legitimate exercise of the the right of ownership, the freedom of enterprise, among others, against which, the regulation that is derive from the Convention must be provided ".

Additional considerations are predicable on the obligations of States Parties in relation to the implementation of measures for the identification, seizure and confiscation of assets related to terrorist activities (Art. 5o). This is because these actions must be subject to the procedures of the internal legislation of the State Party, " which leaves to the exception the respect of the constitutional and legal guarantees in favor of those who are subjected to the application of this measure, which will only become final when a judicial process has been set up, which establishes that the right of ownership of the resources of the holder for the purpose or the illegal origin of the resources must be declared ". These powers, in the judgment of the Attorney General, are within the concept of Domain extinction provided for in article 34 C. P. Thus, they are fully differentiable from other measures, these if unconstitutional, such as confiscation.

The duty of States Parties to criminalize as determinants of the laundering of assets, those described in the international instruments provided for in Article 2 of the Convention (Art. 6o) is constitutional, while the national legislator has provided for rules in this regard. In fact, Article 323 of the Penal Code establishes the general type of asset laundering, a rule that was amended by Article 17 of Law 1121/06, precisely in order to include within the Criminal acts of crime are the financing of terrorism and the administration of resources related to terrorist activities.

" In this regard, the Colombian State has been at the forefront to include in its legislation on the laundering of assets, as an underlying crime, to the financing of terrorism, with this being given early compliance with the Article 6 of the Treaty under study. It should also be borne in mind that the international instrument provides clarity with regard to acts which must be regarded as terrorists, without involving a tax list, which will facilitate the interpretation of Articles 323, 343 and 345 of the Penal Code. Compliance with the convention will be extremely helpful to the country in terms of the fight against terrorism. "

The provisions of the Convention providing for different modalities of cooperation between States for the prevention, punishment and elimination of terrorism (Arts. 7o, 8o and 9o) are equally in line with the Constitution, since they respond adequately to the transnational character of terrorist conduct and are also respectful of the sovereignty of States Parties to the instrument. international [3].

In the face of provisions regarding the transfer of persons in custody for probative purposes (Art. 10), the intervener considers that the requirements set out therein for the referral of detainees or convicts from one State to another guarantee the effectiveness of the constitutional postulates. In the opinion of the Attorney General, this provision is " respectful of human dignity (articles 1or and 12 C.N.), as it is not simply of instrumentalising a person for the sake of the fight against terrorism, but the collaboration that that person should be the product of his informed consent. Furthermore, the States involved in the operation must agree, in the exercise of their sovereignty, which guarantees that this is not a surreptitious maneuver but is given under the supervision and supervision of each of the States, which is in the interests not only of the elimination of terrorism but also of the rights of the person who has voluntarily decided to collaborate in the achievement of this purpose. | Furthermore, the other conditions laid down by the Convention for the development of this tool of cooperation are in the interest of the person in custody and of the interests of the State in respect of the eradication of terrorism, in such a way that this provision is fully in line with the Constitution. "

The inapplicability of criminalization as a political crime of acts constituting terrorism (Art. 11) finds, in the case of the intervener, full constitutional support, in accordance with previous decisions of the Court that have maintained the impossibility of granting favorable criminal treatment to acts involving the manifest lack of knowledge of values axials for constitutional order [4]. Similarly, the prohibition of extending the status of refugee and asylum to the authors of acts constituting terrorism (Arts. 12 and 13) " is consistent with the constitutional provisions in several ways. First, and as was stated in the first instance, only the validity of a national and international fair order is the right scenario for the guarantee of the individual rights of the members (Article 2), in particular the right to the right to (Article 22), hence efforts must be made between the international community to eradicate terrorism, which, of course, will not be possible if there are States which are in the process of such practices. This is why the granting of guarantees to terrorists is detrimental to constitutional rights and does not know the founding principles of the constitutional order. | | In this way, the constitutionality of two norms is clear, respecting the competence attributed to the legislator, since they foresee that each State must adopt the corresponding measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic or international law, seeks to avoid the granting of unjustified benefits in favor of those who carry out the acts considered as crimes by the Convention, as such a way of acting of the State would be constituted in a The European Union is a major player in the fight against terrorism and in this respect. the purposes that the Political Charter has laid out in terms of international cooperation and the guarantee of rights is referred to ". (Original Negrillas).

The need for the provisions of the Convention not to become instruments for unjustified discrimination and the violation of internationally recognized human rights (Arts. 14 and 15) is exequable, given that it is precisely these forecasts that constitute the limit to the exercise of the punitive power of the State; since " despite the importance of the elimination of terrorist practices to national and international level, this purpose does not justify the lack of knowledge of human rights. Interpretation absolutely consistent with the fundamental principles provided for in Articles 1or, 2or and 5or of the Political Constitution. "

Similarly, the rules on cooperation between States Parties (Arts. 16, 17 and 18), as well as restrictions on the exercise of jurisdiction of one State Party in the territory of another is in accordance with the Constitution. These prescriptions allow the proper exercise of sovereignty of each State in the implementation and development of the Convention and the measures provided for by the Convention, making it clear that what is foreseen by this international instrument is cooperation and not the abrogation of competences that are part of the sovereignty of each State. | | In this way, this provision is in accordance with the Constitution and in particular Articles 9, 226 and 227".

Finally, the intervener has no qualms about the constitutionality of the final provisions of the Convention, while they reflect the general rules of public international law, as provided for by the Vienna Convention on Right of the Treaties.

III. CONCEPT OF THE NATION ' S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Attorney General of the Nation, in exercise of the powers provided for in 242-2 and 278 of the Political Constitution, presented a concept within the procedure of the reference, in which he asks the Court to return the law to the Chamber of Representatives, in order to remedy the procedural defects which, in their opinion, occurred in the procedure which preceded the approval of the standard object of examination.

The Public Ministry identifies two identified irregularities. First, he maintains that the provisions of Article 157 C. P. are not complied with, as soon as he foresees the need for any bill to be officially published by the Congress before give you a course in the respective committee. In the second term, he estimated that the pre-vote requirement in the article 160 Superior was pre-termated for the case of the approval of the project during the first debate in the House of Representatives.

Regarding the first level of analysis, the Fiscal View highlights the fact that the publication of the bills constitutes a guarantee of publicity for the congressmen, who will have the opportunity to know the text that will be submitted to the their approval, giving them the opportunity to participate in the debate by expressing their judgments and opinions with respect to the draft or proposal, which develops the democratic principle of popular sovereignty enshrined in our Constitution, as it has [5] In particular, the Attorney General brings to the collation arguments according to which the publication responds to the " compliance with a supposed minimum of deliberative and decision-making rationality that implies the prior knowledge of the Congressmen, both of the bills as to the proposed changes with respect to the same, so as to guarantee the democratic principle of the legislative debate in the process of formation of the law, since the lack of knowledge of the project and the modifications lack of object for the development of legislative discussion "[6].

In the case of the Public Ministry, in the present case it is clear that when the bill approving the international instrument was dealt with in the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives, Article 157, numeral 1 of the Charter, and therefore articles 144, 156 and 157 of the Congress Regulations, which require the Publication of the paper before giving course to the project in the legislative cell, since the presentation for the first debate was published on March 31, 2006, and the announcement for the first debate was held on March 29 of the same year. In this way, for the Fiscal View, the legislative process under study is flawed as an unconstitutionality, as the Congress of the Republic broke the constitutional and regulatory requirement of the publication of the bill. "prior to taking action on the respective commission", in this case, has due to take place before the announcement is made.

In the face of the second objection related to the passage of the bill, the Attorney General warns that the requirements laid down by the constitutional case law for the execution of the ad prior to the vote of bills (Art. 160 C. P.), were not met for the first debate in the House of Representatives. To this end, it highlights how " at the end of the session of March 29, 2006, session in which the announcement of Bill 221/05 Chamber, 075/05 Senate was made, indicated:

"The session is closed and is called for next Wednesday." An announcement in such terms is absolutely clear, we are facing a fully determined date. In that sense, the vote was to take place on Wednesday, 29 March 2006, that is, on Wednesday 5 April, but finally, it was given on the third Wednesday after the announcement, or on Wednesday, 19 April of that year. So you ask: should the agenda for 5 April be understood to be the order of the day in which it was to be reassessed? Or is it still better that next Wednesday's speech can be given the next session? For this Dispatch the answer is negative. To answer in the affirmative, the questions raised would imply that the interpretation of the requirement required by article 8o of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, to the point of ending up making it inoperative, would be made more flexible. The vote was due to be taken at the Wednesday 5 April session, which was previously announced and not in another (which was also uncertain as to which next Wednesday?). That is the real scope of constitutional article 160 . In these cases, if the date of the session was changed, it was appropriate to act in the manner set out in Article 8o cited: in a separate session to announce the date on which a bill will be discussed and voted on. "

In view of this irregularity and in accordance with the case law applicable to the matter, the Public Ministry considers that this is a vice of a subsable nature, which is why the law must be returned to the Congress, so that The corresponding procedure is returned, the observed defect being remedied.

However, the proposed approach, the Fiscal View presents additional arguments, aimed at checking the constitutionality of the international instrument for its material aspect. On the subject, the concept indicates that the Convention constitutes an important mechanism for promoting and consolidating multilateral relations in the field of security and prevention of terrorism, which is in line with the postulates constitutional enshrined in articles 9or, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which guide the Foreign policy of the Colombian State concerning the internationalisation of political, economic, social and ecological relations on the basis of equality, reciprocity and national convenience, as well as respect for national sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples. From this perspective, the International Treaty subject to analysis serves the constitutional obligation of the State to promote economic, social and political integration with other nations. Thus, its subscription by the Colombian State is sufficiently substantiated, as it presents itself as a tool for integration among several States in order to find mechanisms to prevent, punish and eliminate terrorism.

In the face of the specific aspects of the Convention, the Public Ministry maintains that they are fully compatible with the Constitution, in so far as (i) agrees with the provisions of the articles 1or and 2or, and Chapter 1 of Title II of the Charter, as they state that the measures taken by the States Parties shall be carried out with full respect to the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms; (ii) entrench the process of integration, by establishing, from its Considers Part, that the Charter of the Organization of American States, the Charter of the United Nations and international law, constitute the appropriate framework for strengthening hemispheric cooperation in the prevention, combat and elimination of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, which is in accordance with the provisions of Articles 9or href="policy_constitution_1991_pr007.html#226"> 226 and 227 of the Constitution; (iii) are intended to prevent, sanction, and eliminate acts constituting terrorism; acts that pursuant to the provisions of the href="policy_constitution_1991.html#2"> 2or Superior must be avoided and sanctioned by the Colombian State; and (iv) safeguard the national sovereignty of the Colombian State, since the application of its precepts is subject to the internal legal order.

IV. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSIDERATIONS AND GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. Prior consideration of the existence of a subsable character procedure vice

In accordance with the provisions of Article 241-10 of the Political Charter, the Constitutional Court is competent to review this international instrument and its approval law. The control of constitutionality carried out by this Corporation is complete, automatic and is related both to the material content of the Convention and its approval law, and to the agreement between its legislative procedure and the rules Applicable constitutional requirements.

In relation to the formal aspect, it is up to the Court to examine the validity of the representation of the Colombian State during the process of negotiation, celebration and subscription of the Treaty, as well as the observance of the rules of the procedure. legislative that preceded the passage of the law subject to analysis.

In this regard, this Corporation takes into account that the Political Constitution does not have a special legislative procedure for the issuance of an approval law of an international treaty, in such a way that it must follow, in general terms, the same procedure as an ordinary law. However, this forecast operates with the exception of the obligations of (i) initiation of the debate in the Senate of the Republic, as they deal with matters relating to international relations (Art. href="policy_constitution_1991_pr005.html#154"> 154 C. P.); and (ii) referral of the approved law to the Constitutional Court, by the Government, for the purposes of its final review (Art. href="policy_constitution_1991.html#241-10 "> 241-10 C. P.).

From this perspective it is required, because of the ordinary procedure; (i) the official publication of the bill; (ii) the beginning of the legislative procedure in the constitutional commission corresponding to the Senate of the Republic; (iii) the regulatory approval in the debates of the commissions and plenary sessions of each of the Chambers (Art. 157 C.P.); that between the first and second debate measure a lapse less than eight days, and between the approval of the project in one of the chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other, at least fifteen days elapse (Art. 160 C. P.); (v) the verification of the pre-vote announcement in each of the debates; and (vi) the presidential sanction and the referral of the text to the Constitutional Court within the next six days, (Art. href="policy_constitution_1991.html#241-10 "> 241-10 C. P.).

Finally, in the face of the material or substantive aspect, the Court's work is to confront the provisions of the international instrument and those of its approval law with the totality of the constitutional precepts, in order to determine whether the whether or not they fit the Political Charter.

In the case of the present case of constitutionality, the Chamber considers it pertinent to address, in a preliminary manner, the legal study of the objection presented by the Public Ministry, which was founded on the existence of two procedural defects Subsable character with respect to the procedure that preceded the approval of Law 1108/06. This, because if the existence of a subsable irregularity is found to be proven, this Corporation would be disabled to issue a definitive statement and, instead, it should apply to the provisions of the paragraph of Article 241 C. P., according to which when the Court finds subsable procedural defects in the formation of the act subject of control, it will order to return it to the authority that profirio it so that, if possible, amend the observed defect.

To this end, the Court will adopt the following methodology. First, it shall describe the legislative procedure set out in the draft law, in accordance with the evidence collected in the reference file. It will then make a brief statement of the rules laid down by the constitutional case law on (i) the content and scope of the advertising requirement within the legislative process, represented in the publication of the bills; and (ii) compliance with the pre-vote announcement requirement for the bills and the conditions for this irregularity to become subsable.

Finally, based on these budgets, you will determine if the alleged vices exist.

2. The legislative process of the bill

The legislative file sent to the Court by the Congress of the Republic demonstrates that Bill 075/05 Senate, 221/05 Chamber, which ended with the issuance of Law 1108 of 2006 By means of which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism" is approved, signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) of June of two thousand two (2002) in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, took the following procedure:

2.1. Senate of the Republic

2.1.1. The corresponding bill was submitted to the Congress of the Republic by the Minister of the Interior and Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

2.1.2. His text was published in the Congress Gazette 561 of August 25, 2005 [7].

2.1.3. The first debate in the Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic was presented by the Senators Jimmy Chamorro Cruz and Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave and was published in the Congress Gazette 639 of 21 of September 2005 [8].

2.1.4. According to certification by the Secretary General of the Second Senate Committee of the Republic [9], the bill was announced for discussion and approval in the first debate at the session on September 27, 2005, according to the Act number 07 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 82 of April 25, 2006. In this document, it can be verified that in Point IV of the Order of the Day the announcement of the discussion and vote of the bill of analysis was signed; order that was approved once the quorum was verified for it. In the same report, the following points are noted: "The Secretary asks the President:" Then for reasons of the constancy of the history of the bills, yes for the day Tuesday, October 4 ". projects would be on the Order of the Day.

The President informs the Secretariat, that the projects that would be on the Order of the Day today's two, more announced:

Draft law number 75 of 2005, through which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism" is approved, signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) of June of two thousand two (2002), in the 30th Second Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

(...)

These are the 4 projects that would be included in the Order of the Day of the next week. We're going to do the project debate and approval "[10].

Similarly, the President called the following " the next Tuesday at 10:00 a.m." m. "[11]. In that sense, the discussion and approval of the bill was announced for the 4th of October 2005 2.1.5. According to the certification signed by the Secretary of the Second Senate of the Republic, cited in the previous number, the bill was approved in the first debate on October 4, 2005 (Minutes number 08 of the same date, published in Congress Gazette 82 of April 25, 2006), with a deliberative and decision-making quorum comprised of 12 of the 13 senators that make up that Commission, who unanimously approved the initiative.

2.1.6. The presentation for the second debate was presented by the Senators Jimmy Chamorro Cruz and Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave and published in the Congress Gazette 718 of October 20, 2005 [12].

2.1.7 According to certification by the Deputy Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic [13], the bill was announced for discussion and approval in the second debate at the session on October 26, 2005, as stated in the Minutes No. 23 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 811 of November 15, 2005 [14]. Studying the text of the aforementioned act, it is found that on the instructions of the President of the Senate, the Secretary I_aj"> " announces the projects that will be discussed and approved in the next session.

(...)

75 of 2005 Senate,

by means of which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism" is approved, signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) of June two thousand two (2002), in the Thirty-second Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. "

Finalized the session, the president called a new " for Tuesday 1o November 2005 at 4:00 p. m. ".

2.1.8. Likewise, the aforementioned certification states that the bill was considered in the second debate on 15 November 2005 [15] with a deliberative and decision-making quorum of 96 of the 102 Senators that make up the Plenary and approved by unanimity. All of the above entered in Act 28 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 866 of December 5, 2005.

In this instance of the procedure it should be emphasized that the announcement for the vote of the bill was reiterated successively in the plenary sessions after the October 26, 2005. This is verified from the reading of the Minutes of the plenary sessions corresponding to the 1st of November 2005 (Minutes number 24, published in the Gazette of the Congress 856 of December 2, 2005, p. 51); November 2, 2005 (Act No. 25, published in the Congress Gazette 846 of 2 December 2005, p. 24); November 8, 2005 (Act number 26, published in the Congress Gazette 865 of 5 December 2005, p. 45); and as of November 9, 2005 (Act number 27, published in the Congress Gazette 14 of January 30, 2006, p. 4). In this last plenary session, the bill was announced for discussion and approval at the following session, convened for Tuesday, November 15, 2005, when the bill was actually checked.

2.2 House of Representatives

2.2.1. For the first debate, the representative Fabio Arango Torres, whose publication was held at the Congress Gazette 55 of 31 March 2006 [16], gave a
.
2.2.2. According to certification issued by the Secretariat of the Second Chamber of Representatives [17], the discussion and approval of the bill was announced in session on March 29, 2006 (Act number 17 of that date, published in the Congress Gazette 337 of September 4, 2006).

The minutes of this session have been revised, it is found that they have read the order of the day for the same, some representatives submitted to the approval of the Commission two proposals, related to the granting of the Order, Dignity and Homeland to the Mayor of Villavicencio Omar López Robayo and the commemoration of the 166 years of founding of the municipality. The Presidency of the Commission took the order of the day as well as the proposals cited, which received the approval of the members of the committee. Then, the word was used by the Secretariat of the Second Chamber of the House, who listed some bills, including the one for the subject of the reference, under the title "Project Announcement". this factual sequence, read in the minutes in commented the following:

"Makes use of the word the honorable Representative German Velasquez Suarez, Representative to the House by the Department of Meta

(...)

Very kind, President. I request that these two propositions that I have presented be considered.

The President, Honourable Representative Efren Antonio Hernandez Diaz, Representative to the House by the Casanare department, has been used to speak:

The Order of the Day is considered. The discussion opens. He announced that it is going to close. It is closed. Does the Commission approve this? Approved.

We then proceed to the propositions because it has been approved with the proposed modification. The first proposal of the former mayor of the municipality of Villavicencio, as has been supported by the honorable Representative German Velasquez. The proposal is put under consideration. The discussion opens. He announced that it is going to close. It is closed. Does the Commission approve it? Approved.

The second proposal, that of the commemoration of the municipality of Villavicencio with the decoration of Order, Dignity and Homeland by the Second Commission for the anniversary of the municipality of Villavicencio. Their discussion opens. Notice to be closed. It is closed. Does the Commission approve it?

Approved.

Makes use of the word General Secretary, Dr. Rocio López Robayo:

Project Announcement

(...)

number 221 of 2005 Chamber, 075 of 2004

the context of the debate on political control, which was the subject of this meeting, the members of the Commission took part in the debate on the subject of this session, to which the foreign and national defence ministers were summoned to discuss the matter. problems of border security with the Republic of Ecuador. Thus, the corresponding sessions were completed, the President of the Commission intervened in the following way, in order to lift the session.

"Makes use of the word the President, honorable Representative Efren Antonio Hernández Díaz, Representative to the House by the Casanare department:

Thank you Representative, we want to announce to you that tomorrow's breakfast at the Foreign Ministry has been cancelled and all will be called for the 26th of the month of April at 8:00 in the morning. Chancellery.

The session is up and called for next Wednesday.

The session is up by 2:15 p. m. ".

According to this information, the following session of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives was convened on April 5, 2006.

2.2.3. As stated in the certification cited in the previous number, the bill was considered and approved by the Second Committee of the House of Representatives on April 19, 2006 with the assistance of 18 congressmen and was approved unanimously. (Act number 18 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 337 of September 4, 2006).

2.2.4. For the second debate, the paper was presented by Rep. Fabio Arango Torres and was published in the Congress Gazette 105 of May 10, 2006 [19].

2.2.5. As certified by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives, [20] in plenary session on May 30, 2006, the bill was announced and approved (Act number 231 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 201 of June 15, 2006 [21].

In particular, it is noted that in the aforementioned session, the Secretary General of the Chamber, on the instructions of the President of that Corporation, made the announcement of the project in the following terms:

" I allow myself to fulfill your instruction given to this Secretariat, to announce the projects for the day of tomorrow at two in the afternoon.

Assistant, Dr. Flor Marina Daza, proceeds with reading

(...)

Projects for Second

(...)

Bill number 221 of 2005 House, 75 of 2005 Senate.

(...)

The projects are read Mr. President ".

Finally, it is found that due to the disintegration of the quorum, the session was lifted by the Presidency of the House and called again for " next Wednesday, May 31, 2006, at 2:00 p. m. "[22].

2.2.6. According to the certification mentioned above, in plenary session of 31 May 2006, to which 141 representatives were made present, it was considered and approved by the majority of the present the presentation for the second debate of the bill, decision entered in Act number 232 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 219 of 27 June 2006 [23].

2.3. Reconciliation

2.3.1. The reconciliation report to the bill, signed by Senator Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Arroyave and Representative Oscar Arboleda Palacio, dated August 29, 2006 and published in the Congress Gazette 355 On 8 September 2006, he noted that the accidental commission, when comparing the texts adopted by the plenary sessions of each of the Chambers, warned of a discrepancy in Article 1. On this particular note, the report notes that, "the text approved by the honourable House of Representatives omits the reference to the convention against terrorism, is of a nature " inter-American, " specification that if finds in the text approved by the honorable Senate of the Republic. | | By virtue of the above and after discussing the appropriateness of each of the texts, the present Commission proposes to the Plenary of each of the Chambers to accept the text approved in the Senate of the Republic, for being more specific in its wording ".

2.3.2. For the case of the Senate of the Republic, the Court warns that the announcement of the discussion and vote of the report of conciliation was verified at the plenary session of September 12, 2006, recorded in the Minutes number 13 and published in the I_aj">Congress Gazette 459 of October 18, 2006. In this regard, the minutes read:

"On the instructions of the Presidency and in accordance with Legislative Act No. 01 of 2003, the Secretariat announces the projects to be discussed and approved in the next week

The projects for the next session are as follows:

With reconciliation

(...)

-- Bill 075 of 2005 Senate, 221 of 2005 House, by means of which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism" is approved, signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on three (3) June (2002), at the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

(...)

Madam President projects are read "[24].

Finalized the session, was lifted by the Senate Presidency, who cited for the following " on Wednesday, 13 September 2006, at 3.00 p. m. "[25].

Similarly, the discussion and approval of the aforementioned report was verified at the plenary session on September 13, 2006, as stated in the Act No. 14 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 462 of October 18, 2006.

2.3.3. With regard to the House of Representatives and in accordance with the certification referred to in the number 2.2.5. of this providence, the announcement of the approval of the conciliation report was made on 25 October 2006, as stated in the Plenary Act No. 23 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 609 of December 4, 2006. In this document, the following is read:

" The topics, projects and minutes are announced to discuss next Tuesday at three in the afternoon:

(...)

Conciliation Act to Bill No. 221 of 2005 House, 75 of 2005 Senate. "

(...)

Mr. President, the topics that will be on the Order of the Day next Tuesday at three in the afternoon have been announced "[26].

Finalized the session, the President of the House convened for the next "next Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. in this same enclosure" [27]. Therefore, the subsequent session was called for the 31st of October 2006.

Similarly, as certified by the House Secretariat, the report of the accidental conciliation committee was considered and approved by the majority of the 158 representatives present at the 31 st plenary session. October 2006, entered in Act number 231 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 607 of December 1, 2006 [28].

From the sequence described, the Court observes that in relation to the bill that ended with the provision object of study, it can be concluded validly that (i) initiated its procedure in the Senate of the Republic; I_aj"> (ii) was previously published at the beginning of the legislative process; (iii) was approved in first and second debate in each of the Legislative Chambers, in accordance with the majorities required by the Charter and the Congress Regulations; (iv) the papers in committees as in plenary were published before the discussions began, without prejudice to what will be discussed later in relation to the publication for the first debate in the House of Representatives; and (v) between the first and second debate in each Chamber, as well as between the approval of the bill in one of the Chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other one passed the terms mentioned in article 160 Higher.

However, on the basis of the considerations made by the Public Ministry and in accordance with the methodology set out in the previous section of this providence, the Court will identify the rules applicable to the advertising and Prior notice of the bills, in order to determine if a vice is before the procedure of the legislative procedure.

3. The publication of the bills and the requirement for advertising in the legislative process

3.1. The proper formation of the democratic will of the legislative chambers ensures that the norms produced by the Congress are preceded by high levels of popular representation, from which the legitimacy of these institutions can be preached. provisions. A constitutional state interested in the strengthening of democracy must, in this sense, have procedures that guarantee the transparency of the information in the legislative process. In this regard, the Court's case law has established that the principle of advertising serves important purposes within the social state of law, " since the Congress is the place where the law is being held in a privileged manner. public discussion of the different opinions and policy options. On the one hand, advertising rationalizes the parliamentary discussion itself and makes it more receptive to the different interests of society, with which the deliberations produce more just results. Indeed, there are certain arguments and grounds which can be invoked behind closed doors but which are not admissible when they are made public, as their injustice becomes manifest.

(...)

On the other hand, advertising articulates the activity of the Congress with the citizenry, and is a necessary condition for the public to be better informed about the issues of national importance, with which they are also strengthened. relations between voters and elected representatives, an essential value in a participatory democracy such as the Colombian one (C. P. art. 1or). Advertising is therefore a condition for the legitimacy of the parliamentary discussion, since it is the only way for Congress to fulfill one of its essential functions, that is, to translate politically the opinion of the various groups and sectors of the society and, in turn, to contribute to the preservation of an open society in which different opinions can circulate freely.

Therefore, without transparency and publicity of the activity of the representative assemblies, there is no real talk of constitutional democracy "[29].

3.2. Within the mechanisms that provide material effectiveness to the principle of advertising within the legislative process, the obligation to publish the bills and the corresponding papers, a condition regulated by the articles 157-1 and 160 C.P. and Articles 156 and 157 of the 5th Act 1992 -Congressional Rules of Procedure. Under the constitutional provisions, no bill may become law if it does not comply, among other requirements, with its official publication by the Congress, before giving it a course in the respective committee (Art. href="policy_constitution_1991.html#157-1"> 157-1 C. P.). In the same way, the Political Charter determines that any bill or legislative act must have a report of presentation in the respective commission responsible for dealing with it, and must be given the corresponding course (Art. href="policy_constitution_1991_pr005.html#160"> 160 C. P.). This forecast has been interpreted by this Corporation in the sense that while it does not establish the obligation to publish the report of presentation, it should be understood that this requirement is implicit to the effective legislative deliberation, since it would not have any sense that the report should be provided and that the report should remain hidden [30].

3.3. And it is precisely the need for preservation of the advertising principle that justifies the provisions of article 156 of the Congress ' Rules of Procedure. This rule provides that the report should be submitted in writing, in original and two copies, to the Secretary of the Permanent Commission, guaranteeing its publication in the Congress Gazette days. However, the same rule establishes an alternative procedure, endorsed by the constitutional case law as a valid mechanism for advertising the report, consisting of the authorization of the President of the Commission to reproduce the document "by any mechanical means, to be distributed among the members of the Commission; this, without prejudice to its subsequent timely reproduction in the Congress Gazette." In any case, as the 157 ejusdem the initiation of the first debate will not take place before the publication of the respective report.

The rules contained in the constitutional and organic norms set out above have allowed the case law of the Court to identify the omission of the requirement to publish the report as a procedural defect in the procedure. legislation. In fact, knowledge of the report is an inescapable budget of congressional deliberation, while it is in all logic that members of Congress can validly approve a standard if they have not been guaranteed the mechanisms for to examine the draft submitted for consideration and the comments made by the rapporteurs assigned for the purpose. As this Corporation has pointed out, the failure to comply with the requirement in commented significantly affects the legislative process, while this condition complies with " important constitutional functions, since it does not only prevent the They are surprised with projects and papers that they could not study previously, but can also be considered a development of the principle of advertising, which governs the activities of the Congress, and whose importance has been highlighted by this Court, who has stressed that democracy presupposes the existence of an opinion public, free and informed, whose development is favored by the disclosure of the debates and activities of the Congress "[31].

3.4. Finally, the jurisprudence of this Corporation has established defined rules on the interrelation between the principle of advertising, concretized in the publication of the bills and the requirement of the prior announcement of the discussion and approval provided for in the final article of article 160 C. P. On this matter, the considerations set out in the recent C-665/07 judgment, which was addressed, are useful. of the official review of Law 1109 /06, "by means of which the" WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control "is approved in Geneva, twenty-one (21) May of two thousand three (2003)". On that occasion, the Court studied, among other problems This is the controversy generated by the fact that during the first debate in the Senate of the Republic, the report was published in the interregnum of the announcement and the discussion and approval of the bill. Similarly to the case of the reference, the Attorney General maintained that this circumstance violated the principle of publicity, since the publication had not been carried out before the debate began, which in the opinion of the Fiscal View was initiated with the announcement of the approval and discussion of the initiative.

In the face of this questioning, the aforementioned jurisprudence highlighted, on the basis of the budgets set by the precedent on the subject, that the teleological and systemic interpretation of the constitutional and organic norms governing the publication of the bills, led to the conclusion that the objective of this provision is to guarantee the knowledge, on the part of the congressmen, of the bills that will be subject to their discussion and approval, as a minimum budget of deliberative and decision-making rationality. On the other hand, the provisions of Article 8 of the Legislative Act 1o of 2003, which added Article 160 C. P., responded to a different logic, related to the need to ensure that the bill's approval and vote will be carried out at a date previously known to the congressmen, so that (i) would have the opportunity to study the content of the bill before submitting it to discussion and approval; and correlative (ii) surprised by the vote of a bill that they would not have previously analyzed, because of the lack of certainty about the moment in which their debate and approval would take place.

The judgment in commented held, likewise, that the constitutional and organic rules governing the publication of the bills are univocal in pointing out that such a requirement must be met in advance of the debate of the corresponding initiative, which excludes the possibility of requiring that condition prior to the announcement of the discussion and approval. This conclusion is also based on the difference between the two requirements of the legislative procedure. Thus, the publication of the report is an epistemological budget of the formation of the democratic will within the legislative chambers, as it aims to ensure the knowledge of the project by the congressmen. On the contrary, the pre-vote announcement is a requirement of the legislative procedure itself, aimed at informing MPs of the bills to be discussed and approved at the next session. That is, it is a prerequisite to the debate, not to the publication of the report.

3.5. In conclusion, the publication of the report is an inherent requirement of transparency and publicity that mandate the processing of bills in Congress. Failure to comply with this requirement, while preventing legislators from having access to the content of the project and the action of its rapporteurs before proceeding with its deliberation and subsequent vote, constitutes a procedural defect. Finally, the requirement for publication of the report is a condition which precedes the debate on the relevant initiative, which excludes its enforceability in previous instances, as is the case for the announcement of the report. voting provided for in the final paragraph of article 160 C. P.

4. Jurisprudential rules on the announcement of voting on bills

4.1. Recent Court decisions have exposed the central aspects of the doctrine on the pre-vote announcement ordered by the final article of article 160 C. P., added by the Act Legislative 1 of 2003 [32]. In this sense, the unified jurisprudence of this Corporation on the subject [33], provides for the announcement of the vote as a mechanism that guarantees the proper formation of the democratic will within the chambers legislation. This is to the extent that it allows the congressmen to be prior and duly informed about the bills and legislative acts that will be submitted for approval in each session, so that they will not be surprised by the (

) the Commission's proposal for a Council meeting of the European Parliament.

4.2. In accordance with these considerations, the Court has provided the conditions of opportunity to be met by the pre-vote announcement. Thus, [34] (i) the ad must be present in the vote of any bill; (ii) the ad must give it the chair of the chamber or the commission in a separate session and prior to that in that the project should be voted on; (iii) the date of the vote must be true, this is, determined or at least determinable; and (iv) a bill cannot be voted on in a session other than the one for which it has been announced.

4.3. In the same way, the constitutional precedent [35] has assumed different legal problems related to the existence and validity of the previous announcement. On the basis of these discussions, the Court has established defined jurisprudential rules [36] regarding the requirements to be met by this legislative procedure. Thus, it has been arranged, first of all, that there is no sacramental formula or textual phrase to be used by the Congress to make the notice, provided that the expression used unequivocally conveys the intention of the board of directors of to put a specific bill to the vote in a defined future session. In this sense, the Court has granted constitutional validity to expressions such as "consider" or "debate" [37] and, even, it has understood that the simple term "ad", used in the framework of legislative debates with the aim of mentioning the projects that will be discussed in a future session, allows to accredit the fulfillment of the procedure foreseen in the final paragraph of article 160 C. P. This to the extent that a procedure of this nature is only required during the legislative procedure for the intended effects on the cited constitutional rule [38].

4.4. Second, the constitutional case law considers that the particular context of discussions or debates may serve as a validation parameter, with the aim of testing " if an announcement was actually made, if the notice is made by the Secretariat at the request of the Presidency included the intention to debate and vote on the announced project and, finally, if the session for which the vote was announced is a determinable date " [39]. Likewise, it has been pointed out by the precedent in commented that this context from which the validation criteria "is not limited to the one in the session where the announcement was made, but may include other sessions, including those where the vote took place"[40].

In accordance with this criterion, this Corporation has conferred validity on legislative actions that do not in itself give strict clarity on the announcement and the date of the session in which the approval of the project will be verified. In the context of the agreement, the members of the Congress will be able to obtain sufficient certainty about this procedure. By way of example, in Judgment C-276/06, which studied the exilibility of the legislative procedure that concluded with the issuance of Law 967 of 2005 " by means of which the Convention on International Guarantees on Mobile Equipment Elements and its Protocol on Specific Issues of the Aircraft Equipment Elements of the Convention on Guarantees is Approved "The Court has endorsed the constitutionality of the announcement,the chamber used the expressions" to debate "or" for the purpose of discussion "in a" next session ", as long as these, understood within the context of the process the Court of First Instance held that the Court of First Instance held that the Court of First Instance that the Court of First Instance held that the Court of First Instance did not The terms "approval and vote" would have given greater certainty about the procedure, a sacramental formula was not required when, as in the case submitted to study on that occasion, the context allowed to give a sense of meaning to such words.

To the contrary, in the 2006 Auto 311 the Court concluded the existence of a vice in the formation of Law 1017 of 2006, " By means of which the ' Anti-Laundering Convention is approved, detection and confiscation of the proceeds of a crime ', done in Strasbourg on 8 November 1990', since the announcement made during the procedure in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives did not give a date for the vote determinable, even if it was appealed to the processing context as a validation parameter.

To arrive at this conclusion, the Chamber identified the conditions established by the constitutional case law so that it can be validly preached that the date for which the announcement was made is determined or determinable. To this end, he recalled the precedent set by the Court in Auto 089/05, according to which this condition requires for its fulfillment that in a previous session the projects that will be discussed and voted on in a session will be announced. after, provided that it is convened for approval at a pre-fixed and determined future date, or at least, determinable ".

4.5. Similar considerations regarding non-compliance with the pre-vote announcement requirement are in recent decisions of the Court, which address legal problems analogous to those proposed by the Attorney General in the present case. In this regard, Auto 013/07 studied the procedure provided by Law 1037 of 2006 , " for which the 'Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage', approved in the Unesco General Conference, at its 32nd meeting, held in Paris and closed on 17 October (17) October, two thousand three (2003) and signed in Paris on three (3) November two thousand three (2003). In this decision, this Corporation verified the existence of a vice of subsable procedure, consisting in the absence of the announcement prior to the vote. To take this conclusion, the Court warned how the Secretary of the Commission had merely pointed to the "announcement of projects", without setting the date determined or at least determinable in what they should be subjected to. to vote.

In particular, the Chamber set out the following:

" Thus, the inclusion of the project referred to in the terms referred to above does not constitute compliance with the superior mandate to which reference has been made, since this implies a prior and certain knowledge from the Congressmen of the date in the case of the vote on a given project, which in the present case was not presented [41]. The undersecretary was limited at the end of the session of September 27, 2005, to point out the "announcement of projects", among which was Project number 069 of 2005 Chamber and 244 of 2005 Senate, without which for the effect would have indicated, as neither did the president of the Commission, any date, or the session for which the vote on the bill was scheduled.

" It is also not possible to deduce from the context of the deliberation, the date on which such a vote would take place.

" In the present case in effect, contrary to what happened for example in the same procedure in the Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic where similar terms were used but the context of the deliberation if it could be established that convened the discussion and vote of the projects for the next day as effectively realized-still taking into account the context of the deliberation and the expressions of the president and the secretary of the Commission it is not possible to conclude that there has been certainty about the date for which the discussion and vote of the said project were called. This, for the rest, was approved only in the ordinary session of the five (5) of October 2005, without prior to that date the members of the Second Constitutional Committee of the House of Representatives would have been approved. was warned that the discussion and vote on it would take place at the same time.

" For the Court it is clear, then, the configuration in the present case of a procedural vice as soon as the precise mandate contained in the last paragraph of article 160 as modified by article 8o of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003 according to which " No bill will be put to a vote in session other than that which has been announced previously. The notice that a project will be put to the vote will be given by the Presidency of each Chamber or Commission in session other than that in which the vote will be held. "

The same irregularity was detected by the Court on the review of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "by means of which the" Convention on the Notification or Transfer is approved " In the Foreign Office of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters "made in The Hague on November 15, 1965"[42]. In this case, the secretary of the Second Chamber of Representatives of the House of Representatives incurred in the same error, since it is limited to indicating the " " projects" without the expression of the session, nor of the context of the session, could be extracted from the date on which the vote on the bill would take place. In order to reach this conclusion and after a recount of the events at the sitting at which the announcement was made, the Chamber set out the following arguments:

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

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

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

4.6. Finally, the foregoing analysis states that the pretermission of the requirement is a vice of a subsable nature, in the case of the laws approving the Treaties, provided that the corresponding legislative procedure has been verified in its entirety in the Senate of the Republic, consolidating with this one of the structural stages of the process of formation of the law. In terms of the case-law, the possibility of vice-healing of vice is conditional on the fact that the has given its opinion in such a way that the House where the constitutional mandate has to begin the process of laws approving a treaty have fully expressed their will.

Thus, one of the structural stages of the procedure, e.g., approval by the Senate, will have been completed without any vice "[43].

The above, however, must be applied in every legislative procedure in harmony with the need to protect the rights of minorities represented in Congress. Therefore, as the Court has set out in Auto 089/05, the subsainable nature of vice also depends on the preservation of the rights of minorities within the legislative process. As noted in this providence, vice will become insubsable when " affects the principle of representativeness of the opinion of minorities, so that, if it has not been presented, the results of the vote would have been determined a course other than the act submitted for approval "[44].

4.7. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the announcement prior to the vote on the bills is a condition of a constitutional nature, aimed at promoting the proper formation of the democratic will within the the legislative chambers. This requirement must be present in each of the debates proper to the procedure and requires that the approval of the bill be preceded by the announcement by the presidency of the corresponding congressional cell, in a different and previous session. The announcement, in any case, is not subject to a sacramental formula, since the constitutional requirement can be credited based on expressions that, in themselves or from the context of the session, allow to identify a certain date or the vote on the initiative will be determined. Therefore, simple allusions to the announcement of the projects, which do not allow the date of the future session to be sufficiently identified, are not suitable for complying with the condition in question. Finally, this vice has a subsable nature, provided that one of the structural stages of the legislative process has been fulfilled in its entirety, which, in the case of the bills approved by international treaties, corresponds to the procedure in the Senate of the Republic.

5. Existence of a subsable vice in the process of the bill

The jurisprudential synthesis made in the legal bases 3 and 4 of this providence allows to resolve the questions that the Attorney General made in relation to the procedure of the bill that preceded the norm constitutionality control.

5.1. Regarding the non-compliance with the advertising requirement during the procedure in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives, the Court warns that the way in which the bill was dealt with responds to the requirements of the principle of advertising.

In effect, as highlighted by the Fiscal View, the publication of the report was conducted at the Congress Gazette 55 of 31 March 2006, that is, after the announcement of the approval of the However, the discussion and approval of the bill at this stage of the legislative procedure was verified on 19 April 2006, that is, that the article 157 of the Congress Regulation, since the start of the first The debate in the House of Representatives took place only after the respective announcement was published.

As noted in the previous section of this providence, the principle of advertising seeks that legislators have the material opportunity to know the text of the paper and the corresponding report in advance of the bill's debate. Thus, the existence of a vice in the legislative procedure is necessarily tied to the fact that the lack of publication affects the proper formation of the democratic will of the legislative chambers. This failure is made present when during the process of the bill, the text and its presentation are up to the stage of discussion and approval, without having communicated to the legislators the respective document, according to the procedures provided for in Article 156 of the Congressional Regulation. As noted, the publication for the subject under analysis was timely, in so far as it was perfected prior to the start of the first debate in the House of Representatives, a stage that in the case of the present legislative process was surfed. on 19 April 2006. Therefore, it is not possible for the congressmen to have material opportunities to know the presentation and the articles before their discussion and approval, thus preserving the integrity of the debate and the proper formation of the democratic will.

It should be highlighted, as indicated in the legal basis 3.4. of this providence, that the publication of the report of the paper responds to different purposes than the announcement of the vote. Thus, the fulfillment of the advertising requirement points to the fact that the congressmen are previously informed of the content of the project before they are discussed.

This condition, of its own, must precede the discussion of the initiative, but not the announcement of the initiative, as long as the bill has not yet been submitted to the deliberation by the legislative cell.

In other words, the structuring of the procedural defect for non-compliance with the advertising requirement is subject, in any case, to the publication of the report or the delivery of mechanical reproductions of the report. provided for in Article 156 of the Rules of Congress, has been effected after the initiation of the debate of the bill. This circumstance, in accordance with the legislative procedure that preceded the enactment of Law 1108/06, does not exist for the present case.

Finally, the Court warns that the request for publication of the initiative as a step prior to the beginning of the debate, charges certain particularities in the case of the laws approving international treaties. In fact, as provided for in the case-law, [46] the work of the Congress in this field is limited to the approval or rejection of the international instrument, except for the exceptional possibilities of modification, related to the the possibility of including reservations or interpretative declarations, in the Treaties which so permit. This restriction is explained by the provisions of Article 217 of the Congress ' Rules of Procedure, which provides that the conditions of the legislative procedure on international treaties. This rule prescribes that, in relation to this procedure, (i) proposals are admissible for non-approval, postponement or reservation, the latter only for the case of instruments that provide for such a possibility or content thus admits; and (ii) the text of the Treaties cannot be amended.

It is, under this perspective, a general rule of intangibility of the text of the international instrument, which implies that the text of the article will remain unchanged during the legislative process. This conclusion, in the case of the Chamber, makes it possible to infer that, in order for the infringement of the advertising requirement of the report on the proper procedure of the laws approving the Treaty to be infringed, reasons must be given (a) substantive issues, which clearly demonstrate the impossibility of knowing the content of the international instrument prior to its debate. This is to the extent that the restricted scope of amendment by the Congress causes the text of the project to not suffer alterations during its discussion and approval, different from the possibilities, in any case exceptional, that previews the Article 217 of Law 5 of 1992. On this topic, Judgment C-665/07, formerly reviewed, expressed the following:

" On the other hand, the rule of intangibility of the text of the International Treaties allows to infer that the criterion of the publication of the report of presentation prior to the announcement, must be analyzed with criteria according to the very nature of a law approval of an international instrument.

In fact, as the constitutional case law has considered, in the process of an approval law of the International Treaty, the work of the Congress is limited to the approval or rejection thereof, except for the possibilities established in the Article 217 of the Congress Regulation [47].

This is why the announcement is made to serve as a warning to the Congressmen of the bill already known, for having been published the bill approving the Treaty that contains the full text of the international instrument, in the Congress Gazette.

It can then be inferred that in this class of treaty approval laws, the knowledge of their text by the members of the Senate, is met with the publication in the Congress Gazette, so that The constitutional purpose of the announcement is met.

In Judgment C-1151 of 2005 [48] I consider that "given the special nature of the laws approving public treaties, the legislator cannot alter the content of these laws by introducing new laws." clauses as their function is to approve or impose the whole of the Treaty[49].

If the Treaty is multilateral, it is possible to make interpretative statements, and unless expressly prohibited, reservations may also be introduced that do not affect the object and purpose of the Treaty[50].

Under this perspective, knowledge of the bill, by publishing it in the Congress Gazette, allows members of the legislative cell to know the text of the Treaty. In the form prior to the legislative procedure. Consequently, the charge for infringement of the advertising requirement of the report must prove, with sufficient knowledge, that the content of the instrument cannot be known. The above, by virtue of the amendment ban by Congress. "

As observed, arguments of this nature are not present in the considerations set out by the Attorney General. On the contrary, the above analysis makes it possible to state that the procedure that preceded the discussion and approval of the bill during its procedure in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives guaranteed, in an appropriate manner, that the The members of the Committee of the European Democratic Party (US) will be aware of the report and the proposed text before the respective debate is initiated.

Therefore, the budget of deliberative rationality protected through the principle of advertising was fulfilled in the matter under examination.

5.2. However, the Court of Justice has reached conclusions to the contrary regarding the fulfillment of the pre-vote requirement for the bill during the first debate of the House of Representatives. In order to support this, the Chamber should focus on determining the conditions under which the announcement was made at the meeting on 29 March 2006. Thus, the Secretariat of the Commission has to be held in such a session, without any instructions from the President of the legislative cell, and listed a group of bills, including number 075 of 2005 Senate, 221 of 2005 Camera, corresponding to the subject matter of analysis, under the simple expression "Project Announcement". This single expression, however, does not give any clarity on the purpose of this list of projects, much less on the determination, at least discernible, of the date on which the vote on the draft legislation would be carried out. examination [51].

Similarly, in the second term, the Chamber finds that the context of the session in commented not only does not permit the identification of the date on which the discussion and vote of the bill would be carried out, but it is all wrong.

On this particular point, it is noted that the end of the session on 29 March 2006, the President of the Commission convened the following one for "next Wednesday", that is, on 5 April 2006. However, this intervention (i) omits any reference to what the bills were to be discussed and voted on in that future session; (ii) is inaccurate, given that the session The following from the Second Commission of the House of Representatives took place on April 19, 2006, when the Bill of Law number 075 of 2005 Senate was submitted to debate and approval, 221 of 2005 Chamber, as it was had the opportunity to verify in Paragraph 2.2.3. of this provision.

On this particular point, it should be noted that, as certified to this Corporation by the Secretariat of the Second Senate Committee of the Republic, that legislative body was not in session on 5 and 12 April 2006, due to that "despite the fact that in the session of the day of March 29, 2006, Act number 17 is called for next Wednesday that it would be on April 5, 2006, in our archives, there is no documentation for which it has not been done"[52] Similarly, he indicated that " on Wednesday, April 12, 2006, there was also no session for Easter rest of the plant staff (Presidency circular March 22, 2006) "[53].

In conclusion, in particular for the procedure in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives and having as a starting point the content of the Act, beyond its mere subjective assessment, contained in the certification issued by the Secretary of that legislative branch, you are facing a procedural vice. In this respect, the Court notes that the notice made by the Secretariat of the Commission, under the name "Project Announcement", although in principle does not have the express permission of the President, can be accepted made under his acquiescence. However, the possible validation of the way in which the draft legislation was made is not the result of the fact that it was carried out at an intermediate stage of the session, a long time before the meeting was convened. next from the President, which happened at the end of the meeting. This clarification is important, as it allows us to conclude the lack of any connection between the notice made by the Secretariat of the Commission and the call for the next session, a link which, if it had existed, would allow us to discern the date on which the vote and discussion of the bill of analysis would take place.

The factual verification of what happened at the sitting of 29 March 2006 grants, in the Chamber's opinion, sufficient support for the above conclusions. As noted in the legal basis 2.2., the enunciation of the projects carried out by the Secretariat was carried out after two proposals were approved by the members of the Commission.

El Comercio] Once these votes have been verified, the representatives brought forward the debate on political control stemming from the issue of border issues with Ecuador, an activity that was devoted to the entire session. Finally, after the end of the case, the President informed the members of the Commission of meetings scheduled with the Foreign Ministry and called for the following session, using the expression "next Wednesday". This sequence is noted, the Court notes that the call for the next session, which is part of the context of the legislative process, does not provide any parameters that would allow it to be related to the enunciation of projects carried out by the Secretariat of the Commission at the beginning of the session under study, under the conditions of time and place already mentioned.

The way in which the session of March 29, 2006, was developed, does not meet the conditions set by the jurisprudence of this Corporation for the constitutionality of the announcement prior to the discussion and approval of the projects. Law. Note how the enumeration made by the Secretariat of the Commission does not confer any element of judgment on its relation to the compliance with the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 160 C. P. In addition, the sitting in its context is not possible, it is not possible to deduce that the representatives have been informed about the projects which would be discussed and voted on at the next meeting of the Commission, given the lack of connection between the announcement and the call made by the President, as was the opportunity to point out.

On the basis of the above, the Court concludes that in the present case, the Second Commission of the House of Representatives incurred a vice analogous to that identified by this Court in the Autos 013/07 and 057/07, which was based on the foundation 4.4. (a) decision, cases where it was found that the Secretariat of the Commission carried out a list of draft laws, without determining the purpose of the draft law and its connection with the activities to be carried out in the following session. Therefore, the same legal solution is imposed, consisting in declaring the existence of a vice in the formation of Law 1108/06.

Finally, in this instance of the analysis, it must be reiterated, as this Court has done in the decisions that have been taken on the matter and in the face of the systematic failure [54] of the pre-discussion and voting requirement, the the need for the Congress to implement appropriate procedures, aimed at fulfilling the requirement laid down in the final article of article 160 C. P. Thus, the legislative chambers must ensure that the ad for the vote and discussion of the bills responds to some Minimum requirements to be required. These conditions must be addressed, in any case, to the fact that (i) the ad for the discussion takes place in each of the instances of the legislative procedure involving the vote of initiatives; I_aj"> (ii) is performed by the chair of the chamber or the commission, or under its instructions, in a separate session prior to that in which the approval and voting of the project must be carried out; (iii) (a) notice is expressed in such a way as to make it possible to clearly identify the date of the sitting in which the conduct the discussion and vote of the draft law in question.

5.3. In the light of the fact that the legislative procedure has been established, it is for the Court to determine whether it is of a subsanctible nature. In this respect, in accordance with the unified position of the case-law applicable to the matter, the irregularity presented falls within the assumptions of subsability provided by this Corporation, as long as (i) vicio occurred during the third debate of the procedure, that is, when the approval of the bill had already been verified in the Senate of the Republic, thus fulfilling one of the structural stages of the process of formation of the law; and i_aj"> (ii) the votes during the whole procedure were unanimous, without that there is a substantial opposition to the original version of the project established by the National Government, which is why there is no evidence of the violation of the rights of the parliamentary minorities.

Having regard to the foregoing and similar to the way this Corporation has ordered in previous decisions, [55] the Court will return the bill to the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, in which the procedural vice was verified, for the purposes of resuming the processing of the bill, giving compliance to the notice for a vote provided for in the final paragraph of article 160 Superior and in accordance with the rules expressed in this providence.

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

Verified this procedure, the Congress will have until 16 December 2007, the date on which the first session of the present legislature ends, to conclude the process of formation of the law. On this particular point, it must be stated, as has been stated in the case law, that an order of this nature is compatible with the prohibition contained in Article 162 C. P., since the limit of two legislatures applies exclusively to the original formation of the law, without it being able to extend to additional time limits set by the Constitutional Court in order to remedy procedural defects [56].

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

On the latter particular, it should be noted that the presidential sanction, as it relates to the same approving act subject to analysis, will not contract the change in the identification of the law. In this sense, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, at the time of exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, will retain the number of Law 1108 of December 27, 2006.

This is because, as this Corporation has maintained, [57] Congress ' subhealing of a vice in the legislative process does not contract any modification in relation to the nominal identification of the bill and the law Resulting approval.

DECISION:

Based on the preceding motivations, the Full Court of the Constitutional Court,

RESOLVES:

First. By General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, return to the Presidency of the House of Representatives Law 1108 of December 27, 2006, by means of which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in the city of Bridgetown, Barbados, on three (3) June of two thousand two (2002), at the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of States Americans, in order to process the vice-healing of the procedural vice identified in this providence.

Second. Grant to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives the term of 30 days, counted from the notification of this order to the Presidency of the House, to remedy the vice detected in this House. providence.

Third. Once the vice referred to in the consideration of this providence has been remedied, the House of Representatives will have until 16 December 2007 to comply with the later stages of the legislative process. Then, the President of the Republic will have the deadline set in the Charter to sanction the bill.

Fourth. Complied with the previous procedure, the President of the Congress will refer to the Court the Law 1108 of 2006, to decide definitively on its exequability.

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

RODRIGO ESCOBAR GIL, PRESIDENT;

JAIME ARAUJO RENTERIA (WITH SAVE OF VOTE);

MANUEL JOSE CEPEDA ESPINOSA,

JAIME CÓRDOBA TRIVINO,

MARCO GERARDO MONROY GOAT,

NILSON PINILLA PINILLA,

HUMBERTO ANTONIO SIERRA PORTO,

MARINE BOTERO CATALINA,

CLARA INES VARGAS HERNANDEZ,

Magistrates;

MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ,

General Secretariat.

***

1. In particular, the intervention refers to Sentences C-307/04 and T-729/02.

2. In support of these statements, the Attorney General's Office uses some extracts from the C- 1271993 Statement.

3. In this section, the intervention refers to the considerations made by the Court in Judgment C-037/04, in order to review the constitutionality of the Law 808/03, approval of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

4. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-695/02.

5. For this purpose, the Attorney General refers to Sentences C-140/98, C-861/01 and C-688/02.

6. Statement C-688 of 2002.

7. Cfr. Folios 259 to 264 of test notebook 1.

8. Cfr. Folios 281 to 282 of test notebook 1.

9. Cfr. Folio 26 of the main notebook.

10. Cfr. Congress Gazette 82/06 p. 3.

11. Ibidem p. 4.

12. Cfr. Folios 59 to 62 of Test notebook 1.

13. Cfr. Folio 1 of test notebook 1.

14. Cfr. Folio 301 of the test notebook 1.

15. It is important to note that the constancy in comment refers to the "15 November 2006". However, the Court understands that this is an inadvertent typing error, since the information entered in the certification allows us to infer with ease that this is the session of 15 November 2005.

16. Cfr. Folios 14 (reverse) to 15 of test notebook 2.

17. Cfr. Folios 1 to 2 of the test notebook 2.

18. Cfr. Folios 53 (reverse) to 54 of test notebook 2.

19. Cfr. Folio 72N to 72O of test notebook 3.

20. Cfr. Folio 3 of the test notebook 3.

21. Cfr. Folios 124 to 125 of test notebook 3.

22. Cfr. Folio 128 of test notebook 3.

23. Cfr. Folio 111 of the test notebook 3.

24. Cfr. Congress Gazette 459/06 p. 43.

25. Ibidem, p. 64 26 Cfr. Folio 144 of test notebook 3.

27. Cfr. Folio 172 of the test notebook 3.

28. Cfr. Folio 187 of the test notebook 3.

29. Cfr. Constitutional Court, C-386judgment. This precedent is reiterated in Judgment C- 915/01, with the purpose of the automatic revision of the constitutionality of Law 638/01, By means of which the "ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA AND THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN BY AMENDING THE CONVENTION OF NATIONALITY OF TWENTY-SEVEN (27) JUNE OF ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-NINE (1979)," signed at Santafe in Bogota, D. C., on 14 September from one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight (1998), and the " EXCHANGE OF NOTES BETWEEN THE TWO GOVERNMENTS THAT CORRECTS THE TITLE AND FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE PREAMBLE OF THE PROTOCOL ", from twenty-seven (27) September of a thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine (1999)"

30. Cfr. Constitutional Court, judgment C-915/01, legal basis 5.

31. Ibm

32. To this end, the Court will use the compilation of this constitutional precedent made in Auto 057/07. In that decision, the Chamber ordered to return to Congress the Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "by means of which the" Convention on the Notification or Transfer in Foreign of Judicial or extrajudicial documents in Civil or Commercial Matters "made in The Hague on November 15, 1965", due to the fact that it did not meet precisely the requirement of prior announcement of the bills.

33. The Court's recent collection of the case can be found in the case of Auto 311/06. In this opportunity, the plenary identified a subsable vice in the announcement for the vote in the third debate of the legislative procedure that concluded with the issuance of Law 1017 of 2006, " of which the 'Convention on the laundering, detection and confiscation of the proceeds of a crime' is adopted in Strasbourg on 8 November 1990. Consequently, he ordered to return the rule to the House of Representatives, so that it would go through the procedure in order to correct the vice in the announcement of the vote in the Second Commission of that congressional body.

34. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Statement C-576/06.

35. In this regard, Auto 311/06 refers to Sentences C-400/05, C-473/05, C-1151/05 C-322/06, C- 576/06, as well as Auto 089/05.

36. On these jurisprudential rules, Cfr. Constitutional Court, Auto 311/06.

37. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Statement C-473/05.

38. Cfr. Constitutional Court, C-1040/05 39 Cfr. Constitutional Court, Auto 311/06.

40. Ibidem.

41. It is not enough to specify that the specific circumstances referred to by the Court in Case C-553/04 and C-661 of 2004 do not meet in the present case, since there was indeed an announcement for the following plenary session. C-553/04 M. P. Alvaro Tafur Galvis. S.V. Jaime Araujo Renteria) well the prior and certain knowledge of the Congressmen on the conduct of the vote (Judgment C-661 of 2004 M. P. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra. S.V. Jaime Araujo Renteria).

42. Cfr. Constitutional Court Auto 053/07.

43. Cfr. Constitutional Court, C-576/06 statement.

44. Cfr. Constitutional Court, auto A-311/06.

45. Likewise, according to the certification issued by the Secretariat of the Second House of Representatives, " the file of the Bill of Law (...) that rests in the file office of the Congress, the correspondence control folder of the time and the folders containing the documents of the minutes Nos. 17 and 18 of March 29 and April 19, 2006 respectively, no document appears that allows us to establish the distribution of copies of the report of presentation among the members of the committee prior to the session of March 29, 2006, in which the announcement was made for the discussion and approval of Bill 075 of 2005 Senate, 221 of 2005 Camara, (...) ". Cfr. Folio 70 of the test notebook 2.

46. On this subject matter can be studied, among other Sentences, C-916/01, C-1151/05 and C-276/06.

47. The pointed article states: " ARTICLE 217. CONDITIONS IN ITS PROCEEDINGS. Proposals for non-approval, postponement or reservation in respect of international treaties and conventions may be submitted. The text of the Treaties cannot be amended.

The reserve proposals may only be made to the Treaties and Conventions that provide for this possibility or whose content allows it to be accepted. Such proposals, as well as those for deferral, will follow the regime established for amendments in the ordinary legislative process.

The competent Commissions will raise to the plenary, in accordance with the general rules, reasoned proposals on whether or not the requested authorization should be accessed. "

48. M. P. Manuel José Cepeda.

49. Under the provisions of Article 204 of the Congress ' Rules of Procedure, the draft laws approving international treaties are dealt with by the ordinary or common legislative procedure, with the The specifics established in the Charter (on the initiation of the passage of the law in the Senate of the Republic, article 154, CN) and in the regulation on the possibility of presenting proposals non-approval, postponement or reservation in respect of Treaties and Conventions International (art. 217 of Law 5th of 1992). In relation to this possibility, in Judgment C-227 of 1993, M. P.: Jorge Arango Mejia, the Court pointed out that during the process of a bill approving the treaty, proposals for non- approval, postponement or reservation in respect of international treaties and conventions.

50. Article 19 of the 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties states:

" A State may make a reservation at the time of signing, ratifying, accepting or approving a treaty or acceding to it, unless:

a) that the reservation is prohibited by the treaty;

(b) the Treaty provides that certain reservations may be made only, not including the reservation in question (...) " In practice, the conventional solutions are different: certain treaties prohibit any type of reservations (such as the 1982 Montego Bay Convention on the Law of the Sea or the New York and Rio de Janeiro Conventions on Biological Diversity and Climate Change); others authorize reservations on certain provisions only ( Article 42 of the 1951 Convention on Refugees) and some exclude certain categories of reservations (such as Article 64 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits reservations of a vague nature). In general, a reservation expressly permitted by the final clauses of the treaty does not require approval or acceptance by other States (Article 20, paragraph 1 of the Vienna Conventions of 1969 and 1986).

51. This procedure contrasts with the formula adopted in the other stages of the legislative procedure. In fact, in each of them the announcement was made in accordance with the instructions given by the President of the Commission or the corresponding Plenary. Likewise, at the time of the announcement, it was expressed that the same was done in order to list the bills that would be submitted for discussion and vote in the following session. About this particular, Cfr.Legal foundation 2.

52. Cfr. Folio 69, test notebook 2.

53. Ibidem.

54. Thus, for the present year, the Court has offered five providences in which it has ordered the return of the legislative file to the Congress, in order to be subsated on vices related to the prior announcement of the discussion and vote, all of which have occurred. in the passage of bills approving international treaties in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives. In particular, the cars A-0 1 3/07, A-053/07, A-078/07, A-119/07 and A-145/07 can be consulted.

55. Cfr. Constitutional Court, judgment C-576/06 and autos A-3 1 1/06, A-013/07, A-057/07.

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

57. Cfr. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-863/06 and Autos A-018/07 and A-057/07. On the particular subject of the double numbering of the laws, after the subhealing of a procedural vice, the aforementioned sentence stipulated the following:

"The presidential sanction is limited to" approving the corresponding project "by the" government "and" to attest to its authenticity. " In addition, according to Decree 2719 of 2000, the numbering is given on "laws already sanctioned", for being such a numbering of the law, an administrative procedure that must be carried out "keeping a numerical sequence indefinite and not by year", the requirement laid down in Article 194 of Law 5 of 1992. | | The constitutional jurisprudence in previous situations in which a law has been sent back to Congress to be remedied by the suffering of forms of vices, accounts for the fact that the law number has generally been respected in the process of initially assigned. This is the case, for example, of the 1992 C-607 (M. P. Alejandro Martínez Caballero), in which the Law 1of 1992, which suffered from a vices of form, was returned to the Congress. After being subsated in its processing and sanctioned at a second opportunity, its original law number was respected. So the Constitutional Court, having corrected the vice in a way that fell on the Law 1of 1992, declared it exequable.

In the sanction, the National Government, with signatures of the President of the Republic and the Minister of Government of the moment, sanctioned the corrected bill, as follows:

" In compliance with what the Constitutional Court has ordered, the National Government endorses the acts by which the Congress of the Republic subsated the procedural vices it incurred in issuing the Law 1 1992 ". | | In the case at hand, the Court warns the following:

(i) the first law number-869 of 2004-is the one that identifies the approved law subject to the control exercised in this process;

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

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

Act 1108 2006

Original Language Title: LEY 1108 de 2006

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Search Translated Laws of Colombia