Act 1108 2006

Original Language Title: LEY 1108 de 2006

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
ACT 1108 2006
(December 27)
Official Gazette No. 46,835 of December 7, 2007 CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

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

Term Notes
THE CONGRESS OF COLOMBIA
having regard to the text of the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), on the thirtieth second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, which reads: (to be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).
Inter-American Convention against Terrorism Interamerican Convention Against Terrorism

Convenção
Inter-American Convention against Terrorism or contre le terrorisme
interaméricaine INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM THE STATES PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION, BEARING IN MIND the purposes and principles of the Charter of the Organization of American States and the United Nations Charter;
CONSIDERING that terrorism poses a serious threat to democratic values ​​and to international peace and security and is a cause of deep concern to all Member States;
REAFFIRMING the need to adopt effective American system to prevent, punish and eliminate terrorism through the broadest cooperation;
RECOGNIZING that the serious economic harm to states which may result from terrorist acts is one of the factors that underscore 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 Ministers of Foreign Affairs, HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE AND PURPOSES.
This Convention aims to prevent, punish and eliminate terrorism. To this end, States Parties undertake to adopt the necessary measures and strengthen cooperation among them, according to the provisions of this Convention.
ARTICLE 2.
international instruments.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "crime" those established in the international instruments listed below:
a) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970 .
b) Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, signed at Montreal on 23 September 1971.
c) Convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, adopted 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 December 17, 1979.
e) Convention on the physical protection of nuclear material, signed in Vienna on 3 March 1980.
f) Protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts of violence at airports serving international civil aviation supplementary to the Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, signed at Montreal on 24 February 1988.
g) Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation, done in Rome on 10 March 1988. *
h) Protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of fixed platforms Located on the continental shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988. *
i) International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 15 December 1997.
j) International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly United Nations on 9 December 1999. Effective Jurisprudence



2. When depositing its instrument of ratification to this Convention, the State 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 State Party, that instrument It is not considered included in the aforementioned paragraph. The declaration shall cease to have effect as that instrument enters into force for that State Party, which shall notify the depositary of this fact. Effective Jurisprudence


3. When a State Party ceases to be part of one of the international instruments listed in paragraph 1 of this Article may make a statement with respect to that instrument, as provided in paragraph 2 of this article.

ARTICLE 3. internal measures.
Each State Party in accordance with its constitutional provisions, will strive to be part of the international instruments listed in Article 2 of which is not yet a party and to take the necessary measures for the effective implementation thereof, including the establishment in their domestic legislation of penalties for offenses listed there.

ARTICLE 4. MEASURES TO PREVENT, combat and eradicate the financing of terrorism.
1. Each State Party shall, to the extent that it has not done so, should establish a legal and regulatory regime to prevent, combat and eradicate the financing of terrorism and for effective international cooperation in this regard, which should include:
to ) A comprehensive domestic regulatory and supervisory regime for banks, other financial institutions and other entities deemed particularly susceptible to being used to finance terrorist activities. This regime shall emphasize requirements for customer identification, record keeping and reporting of suspicious or unusual transactions.
B) Measures to detect and monitor movements across borders of cash, bearer negotiable instruments, and other appropriate movements of value. These measures shall be subject to safeguards to ensure proper use of information and should not impede legitimate capital movements.
C) Measures to ensure that the competent authorities dedicated to combating the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 have the ability to cooperate and exchange information at the national and international levels, in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the domestic law. To that end, each state party shall establish and maintain a financial intelligence unit to serve 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 on the designated its financial intelligence unit authority.
2. For the implementation of paragraph 1 of this article, States parties shall use as guidelines the recommendations developed by specialized international and regional entities, in particular the Group of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and, where appropriate, the Commission for the Drug Abuse Control (CICAD), the Group of Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) and the Financial Action Task Force of South America (GAFISUD).

ARTICLE 5. Seizure and Confiscation of funds or other assets.
1. Each State Party in accordance with the procedures established in its domestic law, take the necessary measures to identify, freeze, seize and, if necessary, proceed to the confiscation of funds or other assets constituting the proceeds of the commission or have as purpose finance or have financed or facilitated the commission of any of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention.
2. The measures in paragraph 1 shall apply with respect to offenses committed both within and outside the jurisdiction of the State party.
ARTICLE 6. DETERMINING
CRIMES OF MONEY LAUNDERING.
1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their criminal legislation relating to the offense of money laundering include as predicate offenses of money laundering offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention.
The predicate offenses for money laundering in paragraph 1 shall include those committed both within and outside the jurisdiction of the State party.

ARTICLE 7. COOPERATION IN BORDER AREA.

1. States Parties, in accordance with their respective domestic legal and administrative regimes, promote cooperation and exchange of information in order to improve measures of border and customs controls to detect and prevent the international movement of terrorists and trafficking in arms or other materials intended to support terrorist activities.
2. In this regard, they promote cooperation and exchange of information to improve emission controls of travel documents and identity and prevent counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use.
3. Such measures shall be carried out without prejudice to applicable to the free movement of people and trade facilitation international commitments.

ITEM 8. COOPERATION BETWEEN AUTHORITIES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW.
States Parties shall cooperate closely in accordance with their respective domestic legal and administrative systems in order to strengthen the effective enforcement and combating offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2.
In Here, they establish and improve, if necessary, the channels of communication between their competent authorities to facilitate the secure and rapid exchange of information on all aspects of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention .

ARTICLE 9 MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE.
States Parties shall afford one another the broadest and swiftest legal assistance possible in relation to the prevention, investigation and prosecution of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 and proceedings related to these, in accordance with applicable international agreements in force. In the absence of such agreements, States Parties such assistance expeditiously in accordance with its domestic law will be provided.

ARTICLE 10. TRANSFER OF PERSONS IN CUSTODY.
1. The person who is being detained or serving a sentence in the territory of a State Party whose presence Party for purposes of identification or identification or to help obtain needed for research testing or prosecution of request in another State offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 may be transferred if the following conditions are met:
a) the person freely gives his consent, once informed, b) Both states agree, subject to conditions they deem appropriate.
2. For the purposes of this Article:
a) The State to which the person is transferred shall have the authority and obligation to keep custody, unless the State from which she was transferred otherwise requested or authorized.
B) The State to which the person is transferred shall without delay implement its obligation to return to the custody of the State from which the person was transferred as agreed beforehand or otherwise the competent authorities of both States.
C. The State to which the person is transferred shall not require the State from which the person was transferred to initiate extradition proceedings for the return.
D. It will take into account the time spent in the custody the person in the State to which has been transferred to the effects of the sentence that has to be served in the State from which it has been transferred.
3. Unless the State Party from which is to be transferred from an individual under the present article so agrees, that person, whatever their nationality, will not be prosecuted or detained or subjected to any other restriction of personal freedom in the territory of the State to which he is transferred in respect of acts or before leaving the territory of the State from which he was transferred convictions.
ARTICLE 11.
inapplicability of political offense exception.
For purposes of extradition or mutual legal assistance, none of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 shall be regarded as a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives.
Accordingly, a request for extradition or mutual legal assistance may not be refused on the sole ground that it relates to a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives.

ARTICLE 12. DENIAL OF REFUGEE STATUS.

Each State Party shall take appropriate measures, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law to ensure that refugee status is not granted to persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed a offense established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention.

ARTICLE 13. DENIAL OF ASYLUM.
Each State Party shall take appropriate measures, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, to ensure that asylum is not granted to persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed a offense 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 imposing an obligation to provide mutual legal assistance if the requested State Party has substantial grounds for believing that the request has been made to prosecute or punish a person for reasons of race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion or if compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person's position for any of these reasons.

ARTICLE 15. HUMAN RIGHTS.
1. The measures taken by States Parties under this Convention shall be conducted with full respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
2. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as affecting other rights and obligations of states and individuals under international law, in particular the United Nations Charter, the Charter of the Organization of American States , International Humanitarian law, International Human Rights law and International Refugee law.
3. Any person who is taken into custody or regarding whom any other measures are taken or proceedings are carried out pursuant to this Convention shall be guaranteed fair treatment, including enjoyment of all rights and guarantees in conformity with the law of the State in which territory is present and applicable provisions of international law.

ARTICLE 16. TRAINING.
1. States Parties shall promote technical cooperation programs and training at national, bilateral, subregional and regional level and within the framework of the Organization of American States to strengthen national institutions responsible for compliance with the obligations under this Convention.
2. States Parties will also promote, as appropriate, technical cooperation programs and training programs with other regional and international organizations conducting activities related to the purposes of this Convention.

ARTICLE 17. COOPERATION THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES.
States Parties shall encourage the broadest cooperation in the field of the relevant organs of the Organization of American States, including the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE), on matters related to the object and purpose of this Convention.

ARTICLE 18 CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
1. States Parties shall hold periodic meetings of consultation, as appropriate, with a view to facilitating:
a) The full implementation of this Convention, including the consideration of issues of interest relating thereto identified by the states parties, and b) exchange of information and experiences on effective means and methods to prevent, detect, investigate and punish terrorism.
2. General shall convene a consultative meeting of States Parties after receiving the tenth instrument of ratification.
Notwithstanding, States Parties may hold consultations as they consider appropriate.
3. States Parties may request the relevant bodies of the Organization of American States, including CICTE, to facilitate the consultations referred in the previous paragraphs and to provide other forms of assistance in the implementation of this Convention.

ARTICLE 19. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION.
Nothing in this Convention entitles a State Party to exercise jurisdiction in the territory of another State Party or performance of functions which are exclusively reserved for the authorities of that other State Party by its domestic law.

ARTICLE 20. DEPOSITARY.

The original instrument of this Convention, the texts in Spanish, French, English and Portuguese languages ​​are equally authentic, it 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 processes.
The instruments of ratification shall 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 thirtieth day after the date on which the deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification of the Convention in 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 thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its instrument.

ARTICLE 23. DENUNCIATION.
1. Any State Party may denounce this Convention by Secretary-General addressed to the Organization of American States written notification. Denunciation shall take effect one year after the date on which the notification is received by the Secretary General of the Organization.
2. Such denunciation shall not affect any requests for information or assistance made during the period of validity of the Convention for the denouncing State. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, July 30, 2002
Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.), Andres Pastrana
The Minister of Foreign Affairs (sgd.)
Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization American States. Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, that article 1 of this law is passed, it will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
Given in Bogotá, DC, ...
honorable Presented to Congress by the Minister of Interior and Justice, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Sabas Pretelt de la Vega,
Carolina Barco Isakson,
Minister of Interior and Justice. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Organization of American States Washington, DC
Secretary General certify that the attached document is true and exact copy of the authentic texts in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French of the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, signed at the Bridgetown, Barbados, on June 3, 2002, in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly and signed original texts of these are deposited in the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. this certification at the request of the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the Organization of American States is issued.
June 18, 2002

Jean Michel Arrighi Director Department of International Law
EXECUTIVE BRANCH PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC Bogotá, DC, July 30, 2002 | || Approved.
Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.), Andres Pastrana
The Minister of Foreign Affairs (sgd.)
Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization American States.
Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, that article 1 of this law is passed, it will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
The President of the honorable Senate, Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez
CASTANEDA.
The Secretary General of the honorable Senate,
EMILIO RAMÓN OTERO DAJUD.
The President of the honorable House of Representatives
GROVE OSCAR PALACE.
The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives, ANGELINO
LIZCANO RIVERA.
In accordance with the provisions Auto 232/2007 of 5 September 2007, Case LAT-300, the chamber of the Constitutional Court, which in its relevant part said:
"(...) it should be noted that the presidential approval, while approvingly refers to the same act subject to analysis, it will not catch the change in the identification of the law. In this regard, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, when exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, keep the number of Law 1108 of December 27, 2006. This was because, as it has held this corporation, curing a defect in the legislative process by Congress does not contract modification with respect to the nominal identification of the project and the resulting approving law on the date sanctioned here law 1108 December 27, 2006 by which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados on June 3, 2002, is approved at the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly the Organization of American States, retaining its initial numbering and date.
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA - NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
transmittal and enforcement.
Run, after review by the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 241-10 of the Constitution.
Given in Bogotá, DC, on December 7, 2007.

The Alvaro Uribe Minister of Interior and Justice Carlos Holguín Sardi
.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs Fernando Araújo Perdomo
. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT


GENERAL SECRETARIAT DC-DC 82
Bogotá, DC, twenty-six (26) September two thousand and seven (2007) Doctor


PALACIO OSCAR GROVE President Honorable House of Representatives reference:
Record LAT-300 - Auto 232 auto Communication 2007

decision Respected Doctor:
at the time, in compliance with the provisions of Sala Plena auto 232 2007, dated September 5 this year, comes this Secretariat to inform decided at providence in question. For which the text of Law 1108 of 2006, through which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June approved is attached to this communication two thousand and two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.
Sincerely,
Sáchica MENDEZ MARTHA VICTORIA, General Secretary
. It is attached
:
- Copy 232 2007 car in forty-four (44) pages.
- Law 1108 of 2006 in fifteen (15) pages.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT - Sala Plena -
2007
232 AUTO Reference: LAT-300
Record Review constitutionality of Law 1108 of 27 December 2006, by which "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), adopted at the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. Judge Speaker
:

Doctor Jaime Córdoba Triviño.
Bogotá, DC, five (5) September two thousand and seven (2007).

The Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court, in exercise of its constitutional and legal powers, particularly under Article 241, paragraph 10, of the Constitution, has issued the following Order, in the process of reviewing the law 1108 of 27 December 2006, by which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), approved in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.
I. TEXT OF THE STANDARD
The law under analysis, whose publication was made in the Official Journal 46494 of December 27, 2006, is as follows: 2006 1108

LAW (December 27)
through which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), second regular session of the is approved at the thirty General Assembly of the Organization of American States.
The Congress of Colombia having regard to the text of the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, which reads: (to be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).
Inter-American Convention against Terrorism
Interamerican Convention Against Terrorism Convenção

Inter-American Convention against Terrorism or contre le terrorisme
interaméricaine INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM THE STATES PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION, BEARING IN MIND the purposes and principles of the Charter of the Organization of American States and the United Nations Charter;
CONSIDERING that terrorism poses a serious threat to democratic values ​​and to international peace and security and is a cause of deep concern to all Member States;
REAFFIRMING the need to adopt effective American system to prevent, punish and eliminate terrorism through the broadest cooperation;
RECOGNIZING that the serious economic harm to states which may result from terrorist acts is one of the factors that underscore 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 Ministers of Foreign Affairs, HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1. Purpose and
purposes of this Convention is to prevent, punish and eliminate terrorism. To this end, States Parties undertake to adopt the necessary measures and strengthen cooperation among them, according to the provisions of this Convention. Article 2.


1 Applicable international instruments. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "crime" those established in the international instruments listed below:
a) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970 .
b) Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, signed at Montreal on 23 September 1971.
c) Convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, adopted 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 December 17, 1979.
e) Convention on the physical protection of nuclear material, signed in Vienna on 3 March 1980.
f) Protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts of violence at airports serving international civil aviation supplementary to the Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, signed at Montreal on 24 February 1988.
g) Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation, done in Rome on 10 March 1988.
h) Protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of fixed platforms Located on the continental shelf, done in Rome on March 10, 1988.

I) International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted 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 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 State Party, that instrument It is not considered included in the aforementioned paragraph. The declaration shall cease to have effect as that instrument enters into force for that State Party, which shall notify the depositary of this fact.
3. When a State Party ceases to be part of one of the international instruments listed in paragraph 1 of this Article may make a statement with respect to that instrument, as provided for in the 2nd paragraph of this article. Article 3.


Domestic measures Each State Party in accordance with its constitutional provisions, will strive to be part of the international instruments listed in article 2 of which is not yet party and to adopt measures necessary for the effective implementation thereof, including the establishment in their domestic legislation of penalties for offenses listed there.

Article 4. Measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the financing of terrorism
1. Each State Party shall, to the extent that it has not done so, should establish a legal and regulatory regime to prevent, combat and eradicate the financing of terrorism and for effective international cooperation in this regard, which should include:
to ) A comprehensive domestic regulatory and supervisory regime for banks, other financial institutions and other entities deemed particularly susceptible to being used to finance terrorist activities. This regime shall emphasize requirements for customer identification, record keeping and reporting of suspicious or unusual transactions.
B) Measures to detect and monitor movements across borders of cash, bearer negotiable instruments, and other appropriate movements of value. These measures shall be subject to safeguards to ensure proper use of information and should not impede legitimate capital movements.
C) Measures to ensure that the competent authorities dedicated to combating the offenses established in the international instruments listed in article 2 have the ability to cooperate and exchange information at the national and international levels, in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the domestic law. To that end, each state party shall establish and maintain a financial intelligence unit to serve 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 on the designated its financial intelligence unit authority.
2. For the implementation of paragraph 1o of this article, States parties shall use as guidelines the recommendations developed by specialized international and regional entities, in particular the Group of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and, where appropriate, the Commission for the Drug Abuse Control (CICAD), the Group of Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) and the Financial Action Task Force of South America (GAFISUD).

Article 5 Seizure and confiscation of funds or other assets
1. Each State Party in accordance with the procedures established in its domestic law, take the necessary measures to identify, freeze, seize and, if necessary, proceed to the confiscation of funds or other assets constituting the proceeds of the commission or have as purpose finance or have financed or facilitated the commission of any of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in article 2 of this Convention.
2. The measures that the 1st paragraph refers to shall apply in respect of offenses committed both within and outside the jurisdiction of the State party.

Article 6. Predicate offenses of money laundering
1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their criminal legislation relating to the offense of money laundering include as predicate offenses of money laundering offenses established in the international instruments listed in article 2 of this Convention.

The predicate offenses for money laundering in paragraph 1 shall include those committed both within and outside the jurisdiction of the State party.

Article 7. Cooperation on border
1. States Parties, in accordance with their respective domestic legal and administrative regimes, promote cooperation and exchange of information in order to improve measures of border and customs controls to detect and prevent the international movement of terrorists and trafficking in arms or other materials intended to support terrorist activities.
2. In this regard, they promote cooperation and exchange of information to improve emission controls of travel documents and identity and prevent counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use.
3. Such measures shall be carried out without prejudice to applicable to the free movement of people and trade facilitation international commitments.

Article 8. Cooperation between competent authorities for enforcement
The States Parties shall cooperate closely in accordance with their respective domestic legal and administrative systems in order to strengthen the effective enforcement and combat the offenses established in the international instruments listed in the 2nd article.
In this sense, they establish and improve, if necessary, the channels of communication between their competent authorities to facilitate the secure and rapid exchange of information on all aspects of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2rd this Convention.

Article 9. Mutual Legal Assistance
States Parties shall afford one another the broadest and swiftest legal assistance possible in relation to the prevention, investigation and prosecution of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in article 2 and processes related to these, in accordance with applicable international agreements in force. In the absence of such agreements, States Parties such assistance expeditiously in accordance with its domestic law will be provided.

Article 10 Transfer of persons in custody
1. The person who is being detained or serving a sentence in the territory of a State Party whose presence Party for purposes of identification or identification or to help obtain needed for research testing or prosecution of request in another State offenses established in the international instruments listed in article 2 may be transferred if the following conditions are met:
a) the person freely gives his consent, once informed, b) Both states agree, subject to conditions they deem appropriate.
2. For the purposes of this Article:
a) The State to which the person is transferred shall have the authority and obligation to keep custody, unless the State from which she was transferred otherwise requested or authorized.
B) The State to which the person is transferred shall without delay implement its obligation to return to the custody of the State from which the person was transferred as agreed beforehand or otherwise the competent authorities of both States.
C) The State to which the person is transferred shall not require the State from which the person was transferred to initiate extradition proceedings for the return.
D) Take into account the time spent in the custody the person in the State to which has been transferred to the effects of the sentence that has to be served in the State from which it has been transferred.
3. Unless the State Party from which is to be transferred from an individual under the present article so agrees, that person, whatever their nationality, will not be prosecuted or detained or subjected to any other restriction of personal freedom in the territory of the State to which he is transferred in respect of acts or before leaving the territory of the State from which he was transferred convictions.

Article 11 Inapplicability of political offense exception
For purposes of extradition or mutual legal assistance, none of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in article 2 shall be regarded as political offenses or related offense with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives.
Accordingly, a request for extradition or mutual legal assistance may not be refused on the sole ground that it relates to a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives.

Article 12 Denial of refugee status

Each State Party shall take appropriate measures, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law to ensure that refugee status is not granted to persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed a offense established in the international instruments listed in article 2 of this Convention. Article 13


Denial of asylum Each State Party shall take appropriate measures, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, to ensure that asylum is not granted to persons with respect which has serious reasons for considering that they have committed an offense established in the international instruments listed in article 2 of this Convention. Article 14


Nondiscrimination None of the provisions of this Convention shall be construed as imposing an obligation to provide mutual legal assistance if the requested State Party has substantial grounds for believing that the request has been made in order to prosecute or punish a person on grounds of race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion or if compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person's position for any of these reasons. Article 15


1 Human Rights. The measures taken by States Parties under this Convention shall be conducted with full respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
2. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as affecting other rights and obligations of states and individuals under international law, in particular the United Nations Charter, the Charter of the Organization of American States , International Humanitarian law, International Human Rights law and International Refugee law.
3. Any person who is taken into custody or regarding whom any other measures are taken or proceedings are carried out pursuant to this Convention shall be guaranteed fair treatment, including enjoyment of all rights and guarantees in conformity with the law of the State in which territory is present and applicable provisions of international law. Article 16


Training 1. States Parties shall promote technical cooperation programs and training at national, bilateral, subregional and regional level and within the framework of the Organization of American States to strengthen national institutions responsible for compliance with the obligations under this Convention.
2. States Parties will also promote, as appropriate, technical cooperation programs and training programs with other regional and international organizations conducting activities related to the purposes of this Convention.

Article 17 Cooperation through the Organization of American States
States Parties shall encourage the broadest cooperation in the field of the relevant organs of the Organization of American States, including the Inter-American Committee against terrorism (CICTE), on matters related to the object and purpose of this Convention. Article 18


Consultation between Parties 1. States Parties shall hold periodic meetings of consultation, as appropriate, with a view to facilitating:
a) The full implementation of this Convention, including the consideration of issues of interest relating thereto identified by the states parties, and b) exchange of information and experiences on effective means and methods to prevent, detect, investigate and punish terrorism.
2. General shall convene a consultative meeting of States Parties after receiving the tenth instrument of ratification.
Notwithstanding, States Parties may hold consultations as they consider appropriate.
3. States Parties may request the relevant bodies of the Organization of American States, including CICTE, to facilitate the consultations referred in the previous paragraphs and to provide other forms of assistance in the implementation of this Convention. Article 19


exercise jurisdiction Nothing in this Convention entitles a State Party to exercise jurisdiction in the territory of another State Party or performance of functions which are exclusively reserved for the authorities of that other State Party by its domestic law. Article 20 Depositary



The original instrument of this Convention, the texts in Spanish, French, English and Portuguese languages ​​are equally authentic, it 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 processes.
The instruments of ratification shall 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 thirtieth day after the date on which the deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification of the Convention in 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 thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its instrument. Article 23 Denunciation


1. Any State Party may denounce this Convention by Secretary-General addressed to the Organization of American States written notification. Denunciation shall take effect one year after the date on which the notification is received by the Secretary General of the Organization.
2. Such denunciation shall not affect any requests for information or assistance made during the period of validity of the Convention for the denouncing State.
General Secretariat Organization of American States Washington, DC certify that the attached document is true and exact copy of the authentic texts in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French of the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, signed in Bridgetown , Barbados on June 3, 2002, in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly and signed original texts of these are deposited in the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. this certification at the request of the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the Organization of American States is issued.
June 18, 2002

Jean Michel Arrighi Director Department of International Law
EXECUTIVE BRANCH PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC Bogotá, DC, July 30, 2002 | || Approved.
Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.), Andres Pastrana
The Minister of Foreign Affairs (sgd.)
Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization American States. Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, that article 1 of this law is passed, it will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
Given in Bogotá, DC, ...
honorable Presented to Congress by the Minister of Interior and Justice, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Minister of Interior and Justice,
Sabas Pretelt de la Vega.
Foreign Minister, Carolina Barco Isakson
. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, July 30, 2002
Approved.
Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.
(Sgd.), Andres Pastrana
The Minister of Foreign Affairs (sgd.)
Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization American States.
Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, that article 1 of this law is passed, it will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
The President of the honorable Senate,
TORRES Dilian Francisca Toro.
The Secretary General of the honorable Senate,
EMILIO RAMÓN OTERO DAJUD.
The President of the honorable Chamber of Representatives, APE CUELLO ALFREDO
BAUTE.
The Secretary General of the honorable House of Representatives, ANGELINO
LIZCANO RIVERA.
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA - NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
transmittal and enforcement.
Run, after review by the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 241-10 of the Constitution.
Given in Bogotá, DC, on December 27, 2006.

Alvaro Uribe Minister of Interior and Justice Carlos Holguín Sardi
.
The Foreign Minister, Maria Consuelo Araujo Castro
.
II.
INTERVENTIONS 2.1. Foreign Ministry
Citizen Gaia Hernandez Palacios, special agent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, intervened in this process in order to defend the constitutionality of the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism (hereinafter the Convention) and its law approvingly.
To this end, he exhibited primarily the subscription terms of the Treaty, which stated that the instrument adopted at the thirty-second session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, was signed by then Colombia's ambassador to the agency, under the full powers that it had conferred the President of the Republic. After this performance, the July 30, 2002 the President gave the executive approval to this instrument and ordered that he be submitted to Congress for consideration. Assortment
the legislative procedure, was issued the Law approving 898 of July 21, 2004, rule declared unconstitutional by the Corporation for errors of procedure in their form, as decided in Judgment C-333 of 2005. Consequently the August 18, 2005 the National Government resubmitted to the Senate the international instrument, which was approved by law subject to review.
As the material aspect of the Convention, the Ministry warned that after the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, acquired greater importance in the international arena need to create multilateral tools to attack terrorism measures that have been raised within the framework of cooperation between States. Therefore, the agreement of the countries of the region embodied in the Convention, to be in accordance with the constitutional principles ordering international relations. From this perspective, the Treaty "raises the strategic objective of strengthening relations with other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the Constitution, giving priority to the inter-American stage and strengthening the decisions taken within the framework of the Organization of American States, OAS, which plays a decisive role in hemispheric security. Similarly, actions are seen as necessary, support the OAS on the progress of work aimed at strengthening the system of collective security in the hemisphere, and the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE). || In this regard, the Convention under study constitutional purposes is to prevent, punish and eliminate terrorism and to strengthen cooperation mechanisms among the States Parties ".

The Ministry stresses, likewise, that the Convention makes no reference to an express offense of terrorism, but refers to the behaviors identified as such in international instruments described in article 2 of the Treaty. Thus, the intervention provides a list of these agreements as a basis on which it can be concluded that for the Colombian case is currently in force of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft of 1970, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of civil aviation of 1971, the Convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents of 1973, the international Convention against the taking of hostages, 1979, the Convention on the physical protection of 1980 nuclear material, Protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts of violence at airports serving civil aviation 1988, supplementary to the Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, the international Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, 1988 and the international Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism of 1999. in this regard, the intervener emphasizes that the Convention "respects the decision of States to become part of the international instruments cited, and frees each Party to establish the regulation of measures in accordance with its internal regulations ".
To conclude, the intervening Ministry considers the matter Convention analysis is inserted in the international and national context interested in the fight against terrorism. This objective is developed through action aimed at protecting fundamental constitutional goods, such as human dignity, peaceful coexistence and the enforcement of a just order, like the rights to life and peace. Similarly, he insists that the international instrument "in harmony with the constitutional principles of respect for national sovereignty and recognition of the principles of international law accepted by Colombia
(...)
, since it has been signed in observance of the autonomy and sovereignty of States, as well as the established constitutional provisions for demonstrations consent of the Colombian State to be bound by these instruments;
And it is consistent with the constitutional guidelines under which cooperation and integration with States of America and the Caribbean is privileged. Similarly, its provisions are consistent with the commitments made by Colombia at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral, in the fight against terrorism. "
2.2. Ministry of Interior and Justice
The citizen Fernando Gomez Mejia, Director of Legal System of the Ministry of Interior and Justice, submitted written justification of the constitutionality of Law from 1108 to 1106. To do so, he described the legislative process of the bill that preceded the analyzed standard and concluded that the procedure had complied with the provisions of the Constitution.
As the material aspect of the international instrument, after explaining the background of the same, which show 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 prescribed to the validity of national sovereignty, self-determination of peoples, integration with Latin America and the Caribbean and recognition of the principles of international rights as bases of external relations of the Colombian state.

According to the Interior Ministry, "the adoption of measures to prevent, punish and eradicate the phenomenon of terrorism in the hemisphere harmonizes with the attainment of the essential purposes of the State enshrined in article 2 Superior, in particular with the guarantee effectiveness of the principles, rights and duties enshrined in the Charter, the defense of national independence, maintain territorial integrity, ensuring the peaceful coexistence and a just order. || In turn, the implementation of mechanisms to combat terrorism results in the protection of fundamental rights such as respect for human dignity, the right to life, the right to peace and freedom locomotion, among others. || In the same vein, it provides mechanisms to the authorities of the Republic to deal with the terrorist threat as a tool aimed at the realization of the rights, guarantees and duties enshrined in the Charter. "These purposes, according to the intervener show compatibility between the international instrument and the Constitution.
2.3.
Ombudsman Citizen Irina Karin Kuhfeldt Salazar, Ombudsman for Constitutional Affairs of the Ombudsman, has written justification of the constitutionality of the rule subject to study. To do this, it exposes similar to those presented by the other participants, related to harmony among the purposes that inspire the Convention and the principles underpinning international relations of the State arguments. In particular, the Ombudsman emphasizes that criminal behavior matter of the Treaty correspond to various criminal types in domestic law. Including the existing Criminal Code establishes the offenses of murder, with their causal Aggravating; taking of hostages; kidnapping, which also aggravating circumstances apply; seizure and diversion of aircraft or means of public transport; money laundering; conspiracy; Training for illicit activities; terrorism; management of resources related to terrorist activities; threats; instigation to commit crime; disruption in service collective and official transport; loss or damage to ship; panic; possession, manufacture and trafficking of substances or dangerous objects; use or release 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 concerning the modalities of cooperation between States to prevent, combat and eradicate forms of financing of terrorism, the Ombudsman warns that the measures referred to therein "respect the constitutional order, especially with regard to the right to freedom of enterprise, because the application of the provisions therein in no way affects the normal development of financial and banking. (...) However, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to warn of the State's duty to ensure habeas data. The collection, processing and circulation of personal information in databases and files entities must respect the rights to privacy and good name. This entity (...) has stressed the need for Colombia to adopt a statute of data protection to ensure the effective protection of these rights citizens. 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, inclusion, purpose, usefulness, restricted circulation, expiry and individuality must be respected, specified in constitutional jurisprudence "[1].
Regarding regulated by the 5th and 6th articles of the international instrument, essentially directed to prescribe the obligation of States Parties to implement procedures to counter the use and management of economic resources linked to terrorism, the intervener considers that the development entity these measures are valid while running, as indicated by the Convention, in accordance with the rules of domestic legislation, including constitutional provisions. Similarly, this conditioning is predicable in the case of the 7th, 8th and 9th articles of the Convention relating to the promotion of cooperation and secure exchange of information between the competent authorities in the prosecution, investigation, prosecution and punishment of crimes criminals and terrorist activities.

In regard under article 10 of the Convention, which regulates the transfer of detainees or convicted of a State party to another, in order to practice evidence in judicial proceedings constitute terrorism offenses, the Ombudsman maintains that "these forecasts respect articles 29 and 35 of the Charter because they guarantee the right to due process and not go beyond the requirements for the admissibility of extradition. || Regarding the possibility of prosecuting 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 it was moved only with the consent of the latter, paragraph 3 of Article 10 respects the sovereignty the Colombian State under article 9 of the Constitution. "
Article 11 of the Convention, which prohibits considering the constituent acts of terrorism as political offenses or offenses related to them, is a rule that in the opinion of the Ombudsman "complies with the Constitution not only because it guarantees the right to justice for victims and preventing criminal sanction for the mistaken setting behavior enervates, but also respects international law for the sovereignty of each State, the principle of legality, the prevailing protection of the dignity and human rights, due process and the right of defense. "These considerations are generally equally applicable to the constitutionality of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, which prohibits ascribing refugee status and asylum the persons for whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed conduct set forth in article 2 of the Treaty as terrorist activities.
Finally, the intervener entity considers that the provisions laid down in other provisions of the Convention are fully consistent with the Constitution, while reaffirming the principles accepted by the Colombian constitutional law international law are compatible with fundamental rights and allow the effective exercise of state sovereignty.
2.4. Attorney General of the Nation Mario Iguarán
Citizen Arana, Attorney General's Office intervened before the Court in order to request that the constitutionality of the reference standard is declared. To this end, it presents a detailed analysis of each of the provisions that make up the international instrument analysis. In this regard, the Corporation will summarize the key aspects of the intervention.
For the Attorney General, the objectives and purposes of the Convention (Art. 1o), are not only compatible with the Charter, but constitute a development of it, in several of its most important points. On the one hand, terrorism is a seriously damaging fundamental rights practice, principles and fundamental values ​​of the constitutional order, so the fight of State against the phenomena that carry and practice itself is necessary, to ensure a peaceful and democratic scenario in which rights are fully guaranteed and axiological postulates on which the Colombian State is founded can be made. From this perspective, instruments as proposed are relevant if it is recognized that the fight against terrorism can not be undertaken with an optimal degree of effectiveness if not backed by the international community, which must be given within international organizations and instruments that set clear commitments in this regard.
Cooperation in this area is not only desirable but absolutely necessary, given the transnational infrastructure they have today terrorist organizations makes it difficult for States to combat outside their own borders.
The characterization of conduct constituting terrorism (Art. 2o) are the opinion of the intervening line with the principle of legality, given that each of the international instruments set forth therein stipulate specific conditions constitute the crime of terrorism.
In addition, it should be noted that these behaviors were full alignment in the rate provided in Article 343 of the Penal Code.
This standard, but provides an open criminal offense, is in line with the Constitution, since the dynamic nature of the conduct, its multiple offense nature, the sophistication of the methods used for its commission and severe impairment of constitutional rights derived from unlawful conduct [2].

With regard to the measures provided for in the Convention to prevent, combat and eradicate the financing of terrorism (Art. 4o), the Attorney General considers its constitutionality "as long as their application is given in a manner respectful of rights and constitutional principles, because as noted with respect to the measure referred to in paragraph a) of the same article, despite having a constitutionally legitimate purpose, the implementation of this measure can bring the limitation of other rights protected by the Constitution, as in this case, freedom of movement, the legitimate exercise of the right to property, freedom of enterprise, among others, against which, the regulation resulting from the Convention should be provided ".
Additional considerations are predicable of the obligations of States Parties regarding the implementation of measures for the identification, seizure and confiscation of terrorist-related activities (Art. 5) goods. This because these actions should be subject to the procedures of the domestic law of the State Party, "which is without prejudice to respect for the constitutional and legal in favor of those guarantees are subject to the application of this measure, which is only final will be turned when you have had a judicial process, stating that by fate or illicit origin of the resources, the right of ownership of the owner about them must be declared extinct. ". These powers, according to the Attorney General, fall within the concept of asset forfeiture provisions of Article 34 CP So are fully distinguishable from other measures, these other unconstitutional, including confiscation.
The duty of States Parties to criminalize conduct determinants of money laundering, those described in international instruments under article 2 of the Convention (Art. The 6th) it is constitutional, while the national legislature has provided standards that sense. In fact, Article 323 of the Penal Code establishes the general type of money laundering rule was amended by Article 17 of Law from 1121 to 1106, precisely in order to include within the constitutive behavior of terrorist financing offense and management of resources related to terrorist activities.
"In this regard, the Colombian state has been at the forefront to include in their legislation laundering, as an underlying crime, terrorist financing, thereby being given early compliance with Article 6 of the Treaty under study . It should also be noted that international instrument gives clarity about the acts that must be considered as terrorists, without implying an exhaustive list, which will facilitate the interpretation of Articles 323, 343 and 345 of the Penal Code. Compliance with the convention will be extremely beneficial for the country in terms of the fight against terrorism. "
The provisions of the Convention which provide various forms of cooperation between States to prevent, punish and eliminate terrorism (Arts. 7, 8 and 9) are also consistent with the Constitution, since they respond adequately to the transnational character of the terrorists and equally respectful behaviors are rules the scope of sovereignty of States Parties to the international instrument [3].
Faced with the provisions relating to transferring persons in custody for evidentiary purposes (Art. 10), the intervener entity considers that the requirements set forth therein for the remission of arrested or convicted of a State Party to another ensure the effectiveness of constitutional postulates. In the opinion of the Attorney General, this provision is "respectful of human dignity (Articles 1 and 12 CN), it is not simply instrumentalize a person for the sake of the fight against terrorism, but that collaboration that person pay you must be the product of their informed consent. States also involved in the operation must agree, in exercise of its sovereignty, ensuring that it is not a surreptitious maneuver but is given under the supervision and monitoring of each of the states, monitoring resulting benefit not only the elimination of terrorism but also the rights of the person who has voluntarily decided to collaborate in achieving this end. || Moreover, the other conditions set by the Convention for the development of this tool for cooperation, in the interest of the person in custody and state interests regarding the eradication of terrorism, so that this provision is fully adjusted to the Constitution. "

The inapplicability of political offense criminalization of conduct constituting terrorism (Art. 11) is, according to the intervener full constitutional backing, according to previous decisions of the Court have argued the impossibility of granting favorable criminal treatment acts involving axial manifest disregard for the constitutional values ​​[4]. Similarly, the prohibition of extending refugee status and asylum to the perpetrators of conduct constituting terrorism (Arts. 12 and 13) "whole consistent with the constitutional provisions in several respects. First, and as noted in the beginning, only the enforcement of a just national but also international is conducive to safeguarding individual rights of partners (Article 2) scenario, in particular the right to peace ( Article 22), hence it is necessary to join efforts between the international community to eradicate terrorism, which, as is evident, is not possible if there are States that protect such practices. It is for this reason that the granting of guarantees to terrorists is detrimental to constitutional rights and ignores the founding principles of the constitutional order. || Thus, it is clear the constitutionality of two standards, while respecting the jurisdiction conferred on the legislature, inasmuch provide that each State should take appropriate measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of national or international law, seeks to prevent the granting of windfall profits for those who carry out acts considered as crimes by the Convention, as a way of acting State would constitute an obstacle to the international fight against terrorism and in this regard in a breach of the purposes of the Constitution has drawn regarding international cooperation and guarantee of rights refers ". (Original Bold).
The need for the provisions of the Convention do not become instruments for unjustified discrimination and violation of internationally recognized human rights (Arts. 14 and 15) it is enforceable, given that it is precisely these provisions which are the limit the exercise of the punitive power of the State; since "despite the importance of eliminating terrorist practices at national and international level, this purpose does not justify the disregard of the rights of the human person. absolutely consistent with the fundamental principles laid down in Articles 1st, 2nd and 5th of the Constitution "interpretation.
Similarly, the rules governing cooperation among the States Parties (Arts. 16, 17 and 18), as restrictions on the exercise of jurisdiction of a State Party in the territory of another are in line with the Constitution. These requirements allow proper exercise "of sovereignty of each State in the application and development of the Convention and the measures envisaged by it, making it clear that the provisions of this international instrument is cooperation and not the abrogation of powers that are part of the sovereignty of each State. || Thus, this provision is adjusted to the Constitution and in particular Articles 9, 226 and 227 ".
Finally, the intervener is no constitutional objection regarding the final provisions of the Convention, as they are a reflection of the general rules of public international law provided for by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
III. CONCEPT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE NATION
Attorney General's Office, in exercise of the powers provided in the 242-2 and 278 of the Constitution, introduced concept in the process of reference, which asks the Court to return the bill to the House of Representatives, in order to remedy the procedural defects in its discretion, befell in the procedure that preceded the adoption of the standard under consideration.
The Public Ministry identified two distinct irregularities. First, it maintains that failed to comply with the provisions of Article 157 CP, as foresees the need for any bill must be published officially by the Congress before being sent to the respective committee. Second, it estimates that the requirement of prior to voting notice provided for in Article 160 Superior was pretermitido in the case of project approval during the first debate in the House of Representatives.

On the first level of analysis, the Prosecutor Vista highlights the fact that the publication of the bills constitute a guarantee of publicity for congressmen, who have the opportunity to know beforehand the text to be submitted for approval, giving the opportunity to participate in the debate expressing their judgments and opinions regarding the project or proposition, which develops the democratic principle of popular sovereignty enshrined in our Constitution, as it has upheld the constitutional jurisprudence. [5] In particular, the Attorney General brings up arguments that the publication responds to "compliance with a minimum course of deliberative and decision-making rationality implies foreknowledge by Congressmen, both bills as the proposed amendments in respect thereof, so that the democratic principle of legislative debate in the formation process of law is ensured, since the lack of project and modifications leads to a lack of purpose for the development of the legislative discussion "[6 ].
According to the Public Ministry, in this case clearly it shows that when the draft law approving the said international instrument was processed by the Commission Second Constitutional Standing of the House of Representatives, Article 157, paragraph 1 shall be disregarded the Charter and, therefore, articles 144, 156 and 157 of the Rules of Congress, which require the publication of the paper before proceeding with the project in the legislative cell, since the report of the first debate was published 31 March 2006, and the announcement of the first debate was held on March 29 the same year. Thus, for the Fiscal View the legislative process under study is flawed unconstitutional, because the Congress did not recognize the constitutional and statutory requirement of the publication of the bill "before giving way in the respective commission" in this case, it has had to take place before the announcement made.
Opposite the second objection related to the processing of the bill, the Attorney General warns that the requirements under constitutional law for implementation of the pre-ballot bills (Art. 160 CP) ad, not They were met with regard to the first debate in the House of Representatives. To do this, stands out as "the end of the session of March 29, 2006, meeting in which the announcement of Bill House number 221/05, 075/05 Senate was made, he said:
" It lifts session and convenes for next Wednesday. " An advertisement in such terms is absolutely clear, we are facing a fully specified date. In that sense, the vote would take place the following Wednesday March 29, 2006, ie on Wednesday April 5th, but eventually this became the third Wednesday after the announcement, ie on Wednesday April 19 of that year. So he asks: should be understood that the agenda scheduled for April 5th would be the day when he returned to session? Or better yet, what to Wednesday next expression may be given the scope of next session? For this office the answer is no. Answer affirmatively the questions raised involve extremely flexible interpretation of the requirement under article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003 to the end point of making it inoperative. The vote had to be at the meeting on Wednesday, April 5 it was for the previously announced and not another (which turned out to be also uncertain what next Wednesday?). That's the real scope of Article 160 of the Constitution. In these cases, if the date of the meeting was changed from what it was to act in the manner as provided in Article 8 cited: in a separate session to announce the date will discuss and vote on a bill ".
Given this irregularity and in accordance with the jurisprudential rule applicable to the matter, the prosecution believes that this is a correctable defect of nature, why the law should be returned to Congress, in order to stock up again the corresponding procedure, subsanándose the defect.

Notwithstanding the above approach, the Prosecutor presents additional arguments Vista, aimed at testing the constitutionality of the international instrument for its material aspect. On this, the concept indicates that the Convention is an important mechanism for promoting and strengthening multilateral relations on security and prevention of terrorism, which is consistent with established constitutional principles in Articles 9, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which guide the foreign policy of the Colombian State concerning the internationalization of political, economic, social and ecological relations on the basis of equity, reciprocity and national as well as respect for national sovereignty and self-determination of peoples political relations. From this perspective, the International Treaty subject to analysis addresses the constitutional obligation of the State to promote economic, social and political integration with other nations. Thus their subscription by the Colombian State is sufficiently supported, as it is presented as an integration tool among several states for finding mechanisms to prevent, punish and eliminate terrorism.
Faced with specific aspects of the Convention, the prosecution claims that are fully compatible with the Constitution, to the extent that (i) agree as enshrined in Articles 1st and 2nd, and Chapter 1 of Title II of the Charter because they establish that the measures taken by States Parties shall be conducted with full respect for the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms; (Ii) consolidate the integration process by establishing, from the Party preamble, the Charter of the Organization of American States, the United Nations Charter and international law, constitute an appropriate framework for strengthening hemispheric cooperation in the prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, which is in line with the provisions in articles 9, 226 and 227 of the Constitution; (Iii) are intended to prevent, punish and eliminate conduct constituting terrorism; acts under the provisions of article 2. Superior should be avoided and sanctioned by the Colombian State; and (iv) safeguarding the national sovereignty of the Colombian state since the application of its provisions is subject to domestic law.
IV. CONSIDERATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION AND RATIONALE
1. after consideration of the existence of a procedural defect of remediable character
In accordance with the provisions of Article 241-10 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to review this international instrument and its passing law. Judicial review carried out by this corporation is completely automatic and relates both to the material content of the Convention and its passing law as on the agreement between the legislative process and constitutional rules.
With regard to the formal aspect for the Court to examine the validity of the representation of the Colombian state during the process of negotiation, conclusion and signing of the Treaty as the observance of the rules of legislative procedure that preceded the adoption law subject to analysis.
Regard, this Court considers that the Constitution does not have a special legislative procedure for the issuance of a law approving an international treaty, so that should follow, in general terms, the same procedure a ordinary law. However, this provision operates obligations unless (i) initiation of the debate in the Senate, as the matters relating to international relations (Art 154 CP.); and (ii) referral of the law passed by the Constitutional Court, by the Government, for purposes of final revision (Art. 241-10 CP).

From this perspective is required, because the ordinary procedure; (I) the official publication of the bill; (Ii) the beginning of the legislative procedure in the corresponding constitutional commission of the Senate; (Iii) regulatory approval in committee debates and plenary of each of the chambers (Art 157 CP.); (Iv) between the first and second debate mediate a period not less than eight days and between approval of the project in one of the chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other, spend at least fifteen days (Art. 160 CP ); (V) verification prior to the vote in each of the debates announcement; and (vi) presidential approval and referral of the text to the Constitutional Court within six days (Art. 241-10 CP).
Finally, facing the material aspect or background, the work of the Court is to confront the provisions of the international instrument and its law approving with all the constitutional requirements, in order to determine whether they fit or not to the Constitution.
In the case of this issue of constitutionality, the Board considers relevant address in a preliminary manner, the law firm of objection by the prosecution, based on the existence of two procedural defects remediable character regarding the process that it preceded the adoption of the Law from 1108 to 1106. This, because of being proven the existence of a correctable irregularity, the Corporation would be ineligible to issue a final decision and, instead, should give effect to the provisions of paragraph of Article 241 CP, whereby when the Court finds rectifiable defects in the formation process of the act subject to control order their return to the authority that issued them so that, if possible, amend the defect.
To this end, the Court adopted the following methodology. First, it will describe the range for the bill legislative procedure, in accordance with the evidentiary material collected in the file reference. Then, a brief summary of the rules laid down by the constitutional jurisprudence on (i) the content and scope of the disclosure requirement within the legislative process, represented in the publication of the bills; and (ii) compliance with the requirement of prior to voting on bills and conditions ad for this irregularity acquire remediable character.
Finally, based on these assumptions, determine whether there are defects alleged.
2. The legislative process of the bill
envoy to the Court by the Congress legislative record shows that the bill number 075/05 Senate Chamber 221/05, which ended with the issuance of Law 1108 2006 by which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002) is approved in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, it worked the following procedure:
2.1. Senate
2.1.1. The relevant bill was submitted to Congress by the Minister of 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 paper first debate in the Second Committee of the Senate was introduced by Senators Jimmy Chamorro and Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Cruz Arroyave and was published in the Congress Gazette 639 of 21 September 2005 [8].
2.1.4. According certificate signed by the Secretary General of the Second Committee of the Senate [9], the bill was announced for discussion and approval in the first debate at the meeting of September 27, 2005, as stated in the Act number 07 the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 82 of 25 April 2006. this document can be verified that in Item IV of the Agenda announcement discussion and vote on the draft law concerning analysis was recorded ; order was passed once a quorum for it was verified. Similarly, in the aforementioned record the following warns: "Mr. Secretary asked the President: So for reasons of consistency of the story of the bills, whether for Tuesday October 4 which projects would be in the order of .
day Mr. President informed the Secretariat that the projects would be on the agenda both today announced it most:

Bill number 75 of 2005, by which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002) is approved at the Thirty-Second Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.
(...)
These are the 4 projects that would be to include in the agenda of next week. We will make the debate and approval of projects "[10].
Similarly, completed the session, the President convened the next "next Tuesday at 10:00 am" [11]. In that sense, the discussion and approval of the bill was announced for the day October 4, 2005 2.1.5. According to the certificate signed by the Secretary of the Second Committee of the Senate of the Republic, cited in the preceding paragraph, the bill was approved in first debate on October 4, 2005 (Act No. 08 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 82 of 25 April 2006), with a deliberative quorum and composed of 12 of the 13 senators who make up the Commission, which approved the decision unanimously initiative.
2.1.6. The report of the second debate was presented by Senators Jimmy Chamorro and Manuel Ramiro Velasquez Cruz Arroyave and published in the Congress Gazette 718 of October 20, 2005 [12]. 2.1.7 According
signed by the General Secretary of the Senate [13], certified the bill was announced for discussion and approval in second debate at the meeting of October 26, 2005, as recorded in the Act number 23 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 811 of November 15, 2005 [14]. He studied the text of that act, it is that on instructions from the President of the Senate, the Secretary "announces projects to be discussed and adopted at the next session.
(...)
Bill 75 of 2005 Senate
through which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) approved June two thousand and two (2002), in the Thirty-Second Regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. "
After the meeting, the President called for a new" on Tuesday 1 November 2005 at 4:00 pm. "
2.1.8. Similarly, the aforementioned certification notes that the bill was considered in second reading on 15 November 2005 [15] with a deliberative and decision-making quorum of 96 of the 102 Senators who make up the Plenary and unanimously approved. All this out in the Act 28 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 866 of December 5, 2005.
In this instance the process should be noted that the announcement for the vote on the bill was reiterated on in later plenary sessions to 26 October 2005. This can be seen from reading the minutes of the plenary sessions corresponding to November 1, 2005 (Act No. 24, published in the Congress Gazette 856 2 December 2005, page 51).; November 2, 2005 (Act No. 25, published in the Congress Gazette 846 of December 2, 2005, p. 24); November 8, 2005 (Act No. 26, published in the Congress Gazette 865 of December 5, 2005, p. 45); and November 9, 2005 (Act No. 27, published in the Gazette of the Congress 14 of January 30, 2006, p. 4). In this final plenary session, the bill was announced for discussion and approval at the next meeting, convened for Tuesday November 15, 2005, date on which that procedure was checked effectively.

2.2 2.2.1 House of Representatives. First debate gave presentation the representative Fabio Arango Torres, whose publication was held in the Congress Gazette 55 of March 31, 2006 [16].
2.2.2. According to a certificate issued by the Secretary of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives [17], at its meeting on March 29, 2006 announced the discussion and approval of the bill (No. 17 Minutes of that date, published in the Gazette Congress 337 of September 4, 2006).

Revised the minutes of this session is to read the agenda for the same, some representatives submitted for approval by the Commission two propositions related to the granting of the Decoration Order, Dignity and Patria the late mayor of Villavicencio Omar Lopez Robayo and the commemoration of the 166 anniversary of the founding of the municipality. Then, the President of the Commission submitted to both the agenda and the proposals cited, which received the approval of the members of the commission. Then he took the floor to the Secretary of the Second Committee of the House, who listed some bills, including for the issue of reference, entitled "Announcement of Projects". On this factual sequence reads in the minutes in commented:
"makes use of the word the honorable Representative Germán Velásquez Suarez, House Representative for the Department of Meta:
(...)
very friendly, Chairman. Request to be put to consideration these two proposals I have presented.
President, honorable Representative Efrén Antonio Hernandez Diaz, House Representative by the Department of Casanare makes use of the word:
the agenda is submitted to discussion opens.. Announcement that it will close. It is closed. What approves the Commission? Approved.
We then proceed to the proposals because it has been approved with the proposed amendment. The first sentence of former mayor of Villavicencio, as has been supported by the honorable Representative Germán Velásquez. It is submitted to the proposition. It opens the discussion. Announcement that it will close. It is closed. Does the Commission approves? Approved.
The second proposition, the commemoration of the municipality of Villavicencio with the award of Order, Dignity and Fatherland by the Second Committee for the anniversary of the city of Villavicencio. open discussion. Notice to be closed. It is closed. Does the Commission approves ?.
Approved.
It makes use of the word the General Secretary, Dr. Rocio Lopez Robayo:

Commercial projects (...)
Bill number 2005 221 House, 075 2004
by Senate which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), Second Regular Session of the General Assembly approves the Thirtieth of the Organization of American States. "[18].
Once this list, members of the Commission intervened in the debate of political control, subject of that meeting, which were quoted the ministers of Foreign Affairs and National Defense in order to analyze the problems of the border security with the Republic of Ecuador. Thus, finalized the sessions, the President of the Commission intervened as follows, in order to adjourn.
"The President, honorable Representative Efrén Antonio Hernandez Diaz, House Representative by the Department of Casanare makes use of the word:
Thanks Representative, we announce that breakfast tomorrow at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs it has been canceled and all are invited to the 26th of April at 8:00 am at the Foreign Ministry.
The meeting rose and calls for next Wednesday.
Adjourn at 2:15 pm being ".
According to this information, the next meeting of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives was convened on April 5, 2006.
2.2.3. As stated in the certification referred to in the preceding paragraph, the bill was considered and adopted by the Second Committee of the House of Representatives on 19 April 2006 attended by 18 congressmen and was adopted unanimously (Act number 18 same date, published in the Congress Gazette 337 of September 4, 2006).
2.2.4. For the second discussion paper was presented by the representative Fabio Arango Torres and was published in the Congress Gazette 105 of May 10, 2006 [19].
2.2.5. Accordingly certified by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives, [20] in plenary session on May 30, 2006 announced the discussion and approval of the bill (Act No. 231 of the same date, published in the Gazette Congress 201 of 15 June 2006 [21]).
This regard it is noted that in the said meeting, the Secretary General of the Chamber, on instructions from the President of the Corporation, made the announcement of the project in the following terms:

"I would fulfill its instruction to the Secretariat, to announce the plans for tomorrow at two in the afternoon.
The Assistant Secretary, Dr. Flor Marina Daza, proceed with
(...) read Projects

second debate (...)
Bill 2005 House number 221 75 2005 Senate.
(...) They are read
projects Mr. President. "
Finally, it is found that due to the disintegration of quorum, the meeting was raised by the Chair of the House and called again for "on Wednesday May 31, 2006, at 2:00 pm" [22].
2.2.6. According to the above certification, in plenary session on May 31, 2006, which present 141 representatives were made, it was considered and adopted by most of those present the paper for the second debate of the bill, a decision contained in the Act number 232 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 219 of 27 June 2006 [23].
2.3.
Conciliation 2.3.1. The reconciliation report 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 of 8 September 2006, realizes that the accidental commission, comparing the texts adopted by the plenary of each of the chambers, noticed a discrepancy in article 1 thereof. On this, the report notes that, "the text approved by the House of Representatives omits the reference to the convention against terrorism is nature" Inter "specification itself is in the text approved by the honorable Senate of the Republic. || Under the above and after discussing the appropriateness of each of the texts, the present Commission proposes to the Plenary of each of the Chambers welcome the text approved in the Senate, to be more specific in its wording " .
2.3.2. In the case of the Senate, the Court notes that the announcement of the discussion and voting on the conciliation report was verified at the plenary session of September 12, 2006, contained in the Act No. 13 and published in the Gazette of Congress 459 of 18 October 2006. in this regard, the record reads as follows:
"on instructions of the President and in accordance with Legislative Act number 01 of 2003, the Secretariat announced the projects to be discussed and approved in the next week.
Projects for the next session are:

With reconciliation reports (...)
- Draft law number 075 of 2005 Senate Chamber 221 2005, by which "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in Bridgetown, Barbados, the three (3) June (2002), second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States approved at the thirty American people.
(...) They are read
projects lady President "[24].
After the meeting, was raised by the President of the Senate, who cited for the next "on Wednesday, September 13, 2006, at 3.00 pm" [25].
Similarly, discussion and approval of this report took place in the plenary session of September 13, 2006, as stated in the Act number 14 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 462 of October 18
2006. 2.3.3. In what has to do with the House of Representatives and in accordance with the certification referred to in paragraph 2.2.5. of this decision, the announcement of the approval of the reconciliation report was made on October 25, 2006, as recorded in the minutes of Plenary number 23 of the same date, published in the Congress Gazette 609 of December 4, 2006. on this, in that document reads as follows:
"topics, projects and proceedings are announced next Tuesday to discuss the three p.m.:
(...)
Conciliation Act Project law No. 221 of 2005 House, Senate 75 2005 ".
(...)
Mr. President, have been announced topics that will be on the agenda next Tuesday at three p.m. "[26].
After the meeting, the Chairman of the House convened for the next "next Tuesday at 3:00 pm in this same room" [27]. Thus, the subsequent meeting was convened on October 31, 2006.

Similarly, as certified by the Secretariat of the House of Representatives, the report of the accidental conciliation commission was considered and approved by the majority of the 158 representatives in the plenary of October 31, 2006, recorded in Act No. 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 under study, can be validly concluded that (i) began its process in the Senate; (Ii) it was previously published at the beginning of the legislative process; (Iii) it was approved on first and second debate in each of the legislative chambers, in accordance with the majorities required by the Charter and Rules of the Congress; (Iv) the papers both in committee and in plenary were published before the start of discussions, without prejudice to later be analyzed in connection with the publication for the first debate in the House of Representatives; and (v) between the first and second debate in each chamber, and between project approval in one of the chambers and the initiation of the debate in the other they spent the terms set forth in the 1st paragraph of Article 160 Superior.
However, from the considerations made by the Public Prosecutor and in accordance with the methodology set out in the preceding paragraph of this Order, the Court will identify the rules applicable to disclosure requirements and prior notice bills in order to determine whether this constitutes a defect in the procedure of the legislative process.
3. Publication of the bills and the publicity requirements in the legislative process
3.1. Proper formation of the democratic will of the legislative chambers ensures that the standards produced by Congress are preceded by high levels of popular representation, from which it can be predicated the legitimacy of those provisions. A constitutional State concerned by the strengthening of democracy must have, in that sense, with procedures to ensure transparency of information within the legislative process. In this regard, the jurisprudence of the Court has established that the principle of publicity serves important purposes in the social state of law, "as Congress is the place where is done in a privileged way the public discussion of the various views and policy options. On the one hand, advertising rationalizes the parliamentary discussion itself and makes it more receptive to the different interests of society, which the deliberations produce fairer results. Indeed, there are certain arguments and reasons that may be invoked behind closed doors but are ineligible made public, it becomes manifest injustice.
(...)
On the other hand, advertising activity articulates Congress citizenship, and is a necessary condition for the public to be better informed on issues of national importance, which is further shake relations between voters and elected essential value in a participatory democracy like Colombia (CP art. 1o). Advertising is therefore a condition of legitimacy of parliamentary debate, because it is the only way for Congress to fulfill one of its essential functions, ie, the politically translate the views of different groups and sectors of society and in turn, contribute to the preservation of an open society in which different opinions can circulate freely.
Therefore, without transparency and publicity of the activity of representative assemblies be not truly speak of constitutional democracy "[29].

3.2. Among the mechanisms that lavished materials effectively the principle of publicity into the legislative process, is required to publish the bills and related papers, condition 157-1 governed by Articles 160 and CP and Articles 156 and 157 Law 5 of 1992 - Regulation of Congress. According to constitutional provisions, no project can become law if not meet, among other requirements, with its official publication by Congress before being sent to the respective committee (Art. 157-1 CP). Similarly, the Constitution determines that any bill or legislative act must have paper report in the respective commission to process it, and must be given the corresponding course (Art. 160 CP). This provision has been interpreted by the Corporation in the sense that although there is no obligation to publish the report presentation, it should be understood that such a requirement is implicit effective legislative deliberation, it would be meaningless were available by the Constitution the report should be provided and this remained hidden [30].
3.3. And it is precisely the need to preserve the principle of advertising that justifies anticipated by Rule 156 of Congress. This rule provides that the report must be submitted in writing paper, original and two copies, the Secretary of the Permanent Commission, guaranteeing its publication in the Gazette of the Congress within the next three days. However, the same rule provides an alternative procedure, endorsed by the constitutional jurisprudence as a valid mechanism advertising report, consisting of the authorization of the President of the Commission for the document to be reproduced "by any means mechanical, for distribution among the members of the Commission; this without prejudice to its timely subsequent reproduction in the Gazette of Congress. " In any case, as stated in Article 157 ejusdem the initiation of the first debate will not take place before the publication of the respective report.
The rules contained in the foregoing constitutional and organic standards have enabled the jurisprudence of the Court identify the omission of the requirement to publish the report of paper as a procedural defect in the legislative process. Indeed, knowledge of the report is an unavoidable budget of the congressional deliberation, while escapes all logic that members of Congress may validly approve a rule if they have been guaranteed mechanisms to study the project under consideration and observations that have been made over the same speakers allocated for the purpose. As noted by the Corporation, compliance with the requirement in comment greatly affects the legislative process, while the condition meets "important constitutional functions, it not only prevents congressmen are surprised with projects and papers that could not previously studied, but also it can be considered a development of the principle of publicity, which governs the activities of Congress and whose importance has been emphasized by this Court, who emphasized that democracy presupposes the existence of a public, free and informed opinion, whose development is favored by the disclosure of the discussions and activities of the Congress "[31].
3.4. Finally, the jurisprudence of this Court has set definite rules about the interplay between the principle of publicity, it resulted in the publication of the bills and the requirement of prior notice of the discussion and approval referred to in the final paragraph of Article 160 CP About this material useful the considerations in the recent judgment C-665/07, which dealt with the informal revision of Law from 1109 to 1106, "through which the approved" WHO Framework Convention for the Control the snuff "made in Geneva, the twenty (21) May two thousand and three (2003)". On that occasion, the Court examined, among other legal issues, the controversy over the fact that during the processing in the first debate in the Senate, the report paper was published in the interregnum of the announcement and the discussion and approval of draft law. Similarly the issue of reference, the Attorney General argued that this situation violated the principle of publicity, since the publication had not been made before starting the debate, the opinion of the Attorney Vista began with the announcement of the approval and discussion of the initiative.

Faced with this challenge, highlighted the cases cited, from the budgets set by the precedent on the matter, that the teleological and systematic interpretation of constitutional and organic rules governing the publication of the bills, had to conclude that the purpose of that provision is to ensure knowledge, by the Congress of the bills to be submitted for discussion and approval, while minimum budget of deliberative and decision-making rationality. On the other hand, the provisions of Article 8 of Legislative Act 1st 2003, which added Article 160 CP, responding to a different logic, related to the need to ensure that the approval and vote on the bill is carried out in a date previously known by Congress, so that (i) had a chance to study the content of the initiative before submitting it for discussion and approval; and correlative (ii) were not surprised by the vote of a bill that did not previously analyzed, because of the lack of certainty about the time discussion and approval would be made.
The sentence in comment said, the same way that constitutional and organic rules governing the publication of the bills are unequivocal in stating that that requirement must be met prior to the discussion of the corresponding initiative, which excludes possibility of requiring that condition prior to the announcement of the discussion and approval. This conclusion is supported, also, the difference in object between the two requirements of the legislative process. Thus, the publication of the report presentation is an epistemological budget of the formation of the democratic will within the legislative chambers, as aims to ensure awareness of the project by the Congress. In contrast, the prior notice to the vote is a requirement of the legislative procedure itself, intended to inform parliamentarians of the bills to be discussed and adopted at the next session. That is to say, is a prerequisite to the debate, not the publication of the report presentation.
3.5. In conclusion, the paper publication of the report is an inherent requirement of transparency and publicity ordering the processing of the bills in Congress. Failure to comply with this requirement, while preventing lawmakers have access to project content and performance of its speakers prior to their discussion and subsequent vote, it constitutes a procedural defect. Finally, the requirement of publication of the report presentation is a condition that precedes the discussion of the corresponding initiative, circumstance precluding enforcement in previous instances to it, such as the announcement for voting as provided in the final paragraph of Article 160 CP
4. jurisprudential rules on the announcement of the vote on the bills
4.1. Recent court decisions have exposed the central aspects of the doctrine of prior notice to the vote ordered by the final paragraph of Article 160 CP, supplemented by Legislative Act 1 of 2003 [32]. In that sense, unified jurisprudence of this Court on the matter [33] provides the announcement of the vote as a mechanism to ensure proper formation of the democratic will within the legislative chambers. This to the extent that allows congressmen are previously and duly informed about the bills and legislation to be submitted for approval at each session, so that are not surprised by the processing of untimely, inconsistent feedback to the debate sufficient relevant initiatives.
4.2. As these considerations, the Court has ruled opportunity conditions to be met before the vote announcement. Thus, [34] (i) the announcement must be present in the voting on any bill; (Ii) the notice must give the president of the chamber or commission in a different and prior to that in which the vote on the draft session must be done; (Iii) the date of the vote must be true, that is, determined or at least determinable; and (iv) a bill can not be voted on in a different session than that for which it has been announced.

4.3. Similarly, the constitutional precedent [35] has taken various legal issues relating to the existence and validity of prior notice. From these discussions, the Court has set jurisprudential rules defined [36] about the requirements to be met by the legislative process. Thus, there is provided, first, that there is no sacramental formula or textual phrase should use the Congress to make notice, provided that the expression used clearly convey the intention of the board to vote on a given project law in a defined future session. In that regard, the Court has given constitutional validity expressions such as "consider" or "discuss" [37] and even understood that the simple term "advertisement" used in the context of legislative debates in order to mention projects will be discussed at a future meeting, can prove compliance with the procedures laid down in the final paragraph of Article 160 CP this to the extent that a procedure of this nature is only required during the legislative procedure for the purposes specified in the said constitutional law [38].
4.4. Second, the constitutional jurisprudence considers that the particular context of the discussions or debates can serve as a parameter validation, in order to prove "if an ad actually made, if the announcement made by the secretariat at the request of the presidency included intends to discuss and vote on the draft announced and finally if the session for which the vote was announced is a determinable date "[39]. It has also been noted by the precedent commented that the context of which the validation criteria "is not limited to the session at which the announcement was made, but may include other sessions, including those that took place extracted the voting "[40].
Under this criterion, the Corporation has given valid legislative actions while not themselves provide strict clarity about the announcement and the date of the meeting at which the approval of the respective project be verified, put into context allow congressmen achieve sufficient certainty about this procedure. As an example, in the Judgment C-276/06, who studied the constitutionality of the legislative procedure which concluded with the issuance of Law 967 of 2005 "by which the Convention on approving international guarantees on items of equipment Mobile and its protocol on matters specific to aircraft equipment to the Convention on international Interests in Mobile equipment, signed at Cape town on sixteen (16) November two thousand and one (2001) "the Court upheld the constitutionality the announcement, when the camera used the terms "discuss" or "discussion" on a "next session" while these, understood within the context of the legislative process allowed the infiriesen parliamentarians that it was the fulfillment of the requirement under Article 160 CP on the matter, the Chamber found that although the use of the terms "approval and vote" had given greater certainty about the process, it was not required a sacramental formula when, as in the case before study that opportunity, the context allowed univocidad give meaning to those words.
Conversely, in Auto 311 of 2006, the Court concluded the existence of a defect in the formation of Law 1017 of 2006, "Through which the 'Convention on Laundering, detection and confiscation of approved products of a crime ', made in Strasbourg on 8 November 1990, "since the announcement during the proceedings in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives did not give a date determinable vote, even if appealed to the context of the procedure as parameter validation.
To reach this conclusion, the Board identified the conditions set by the constitutional jurisprudence so that it can validly be preached that the date for which the announcement was made is fixed or determinable. To this end, he recalled the precedent set by the Court in Order 089/05, according to which the condition "required for compliance at a previous meeting that the projects to be discussed and voted on at a later session are announced, as long as is convened for approval at a future date predetermined and fixed, or at least determinable. "

4.5. Similar considerations failure to give notice before the vote found in recent decisions of the Court, that address similar to those proposed by the Attorney General in this case legal problems. In this regard, the Auto 013/07 studied the assortment procedure by Law 1037 of 2006 "whereby the 'Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage' is approved, adopted at the General Conference of Unesco, at its 32nd session, held in Paris and declared closed the seventeen (17) October two thousand and three (2003) and made and signed in Paris on three (3) November two thousand and three (2003) ". In this decision, this Court found the existence of a correctable defect of procedure, namely the absence of prior to the vote announcement. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted how the Secretary of the Commission had merely stated the "announcement of projects" without establish the determined or at least determinable date should be voted.
Specifically, the Board stated the following:
"So, the inclusion of the aforementioned project in the terms referred back does not constitute compliance with the above mandate has been referred to, because this is a prior knowledge and right by the Congress of the date the vote given project, a circumstance which in this case was not presented [41] will be made. The undersecretary was limited at the end of the meeting of September 27, 2005, to mark the "announcement of projects", including the number 069 Project 2005 Camera was and 244 of 2005 Senate, but to the effect had indicated , nor did the president of the Commission, any date or session for which the vote on the bill was scheduled.
"Nor is it possible to deduce the context of deliberation, the date on which such vote would take place.
"In this case in fact-contrary to what happened for example in the same procedure in the Second Committee of the Senate of the Republic where they are similar terms used but the context of the discussion if you could establish that it was convened discussion and voting on the projects for the next day as effectively realizó- even taking into account the context of deliberation and expressions of the President and the Secretary of the Commission can not conclude that there has been doubt about the date for the which discussion and voting on that project were called. Which, incidentally, ended up being approved only at the regular meeting of the five (5) October 2005 without previously in relation to that date members of the Commission Second Constitutional Chamber of Representatives had been warned that in the same aforementioned discussion and vote would take place.
"For the Court is clear, then, the configuration in the case of a procedural error as did not comply to the precise mandate contained in the last paragraph of Article 160 as amended by article 8 of the Act legislative 01 2003 which states that "No bill will be voted differently from that which has previously been announced session. Notice that a project will be put to the vote will give the presidency of each Chamber or Committee in separate session to one in which the vote will take place. "
The same irregularity was detected by the Court concerning the revision of the Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "by which approves the" Convention on the Transfer Notice or Abroad of Judicial Documents or extrajudicial in Civil or Commercial Matters "made in the Hague on November 15, 1965" [42]. In this case, the Secretary of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives committed the same mistake, since it merely indicates the "announcement of projects" without as stated in the session, or the context of the same could be extracted element of some about the date on which the vote of the bill would occur judgment. To reach this conclusion, and after recounting what happened at the meeting in which the announcement was made, the Board made the following arguments:

"Examined this stage of the session, the Chamber notes that in the case of satisfying the requirement of the announcement of the vote by the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, the Secretariat merely indicated the" announcement of projects law "expression that, in itself, does not allow clearly elucidate a fixed or determinable date on which the meeting that will take place the discussion and approval of the project will be held. Immediately afterwards and exhaustion on the agenda having been found, the board of the joint committees adjourned the session and then two meetings for the second commissions of the Senate and the House were held. However, no date defined for which they would be subject to discussion and approval of the projects announced by the Secretary of the Second Committee of the House. Therefore, this constitutes a defect in the processing of the bill, in accordance with the jurisprudential rules summarized in this section.
"This conclusion is reinforced by the proceeding conducted by the Secretariat of the Second Committee of the Senate to fulfill the aforementioned requirement. Indeed, the Court observes that in this instance is expressly stated that there announced projects would be studied in the session on Wednesday May 2006. contrario 31, the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, when making the announcement, it merely listed the projects, without establishing some precision on the date of the future meeting would be subject to a vote.
"The conclusion reached persists, even if the context is used as a parameter validation announcement. On the subject it should be emphasized that during the session no reference to the session that will be discussed and approved projects announced for the case of the House of Representatives is made. Thus, once the bills listed under this legislation cell, proceeded to terminate the meeting and convene the following for each committee, no mention is made of the date of voting on initiatives mentioned ".
4.6. Finally, the precedent analyzed states that the pretermisión the requirement is a defect of remediable nature, in the case of laws approving treaties, provided that the corresponding legislative process has been verified in full in the Senate, consolidated with this one of the structural stages of the formation process of the law. In terms of jurisprudence, the possibility of remedy of defects is conditional upon "the Senate has decided so that the House where constitutional mandate has initiated the process of draft laws approving a treaty has been expressed so completes its will.
So, one of the structural stages of the process, eg, approval by the Senate, will be fully completed no vice "[43].
This, however, should be applied in each legislative procedure in keeping with the need to protect the rights of minorities represented in Congress. Therefore, as I ordered the Court Order 089/05 previously reviewed, the nature of the defect remedied also depends on the preservation of the rights of minorities within the legislative process. As stated in that Order, the vice will become irretrievable when "affects the principle of representation of minority opinion, so that, for failing to report the results of the vote would have given a direction different from the act subject to approval "[44].

4.7. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that prior to voting on the bills announcement is a condition of a constitutional nature, aimed at promoting the proper formation of the democratic will within the legislative chambers. This requirement must be present in each of the debates own process and requires the approval of the bill is preceded by the announcement by the president of the congressional corresponding cell, in different and previous session. The announcement, in any case, is not subject to a sacramental formula, as the constitutional requirement may be credited based on expressions that themselves or from the context of the session, to identify a fixed or determinable date to be held the vote on the initiative. Therefore, simple allusions to the announcement of the projects, which do not allow sufficiently identify the date of the future meeting, are not suitable to fulfill the condition at issue. Finally, this defect is remediable nature, condition is fulfilled in its entirety one of the structural stages of the legislative process, which, in the case of draft law approving international treaties, corresponds to the procedure in the Senate the Republic.
5. Existence of a fundamentally flawed in processing the bill
The synthesis conducted in jurisprudential legal bases 3 and 4 of this decision can solve the questions that made the Attorney General in relation to the processing of the bill that preceded the standard under judicial review.
5.1. With regard to compliance with the requirement of publicity during the proceedings in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, the Court notes that the way it was handled the bill responds to the specific requirements of the principle of publicity.
Indeed, as highlighted by the Attorney Vista, the publication of the report presentation was held in the Congress Gazette 55 of March 31, 2006, ie after the announcement of the approval of the project, which was held on March 29, 2006 [45]. However, the discussion and approval of the project at this stage of the legislative process was found on April 19, 2006, ie, which were complied with the provisions of Article 157 of the Rules of Congress, since the beginning of the first debate in the House of Representatives did not take place but published after the respective announcement.
As noted in the previous section of this decision, the principle of publicity seeking that legislators have the opportunity to know the material text of the paper and the report in advance the debate on the bill. Thus, the existence of a defect in the legislative procedure is necessarily tied to the lack of publication affects the proper formation of the democratic will of the legislative chambers. This flaw is present when during the processing of the bill up to the stage of discussion and approval of the text and its presentation, without any statement to lawmakers the respective document, according to the procedures provided for in Article 156 of Regulation congressional. As noted, the publication for the matter under analysis was timely, to the extent that he perfected prior to the start of the first debate in the House of Representatives stage for the case of this legislative process was supplied on 19 April 2006. therefore, it undermined any possibility that Congress lacked material opportunities to learn the paper and articulated before discussion and approval, thus conserving the integrity of the debate and the proper formation of the democratic will.
It should be noted, as stated in the legal basis 3.4. of this decision, that the publication of the report responds to different paper that the announcement of the voting purposes. Thus, the requirement of advertising suggests that the congressmen are previously informed of the content of the project before proceed to discuss.
This condition, in itself, must precede the discussion of the initiative, but not the announcement of it, as in this instance has not yet submitted the bill to the legislative deliberation by the cell.

In other words, the structure of the procedural violation for breach of publicity requirement is subject, in any case, the publication of the report of presentation or delivery of mechanical reproductions thereof, as provided in Article 156 Regulation of Congress, has been satisfied after the initiation of the debate of the bill. This circumstance, in accordance with the legislative procedure that preceded the enactment of Law from 1108 to 1106, is not fulfilled in the present case.
Finally, the Court notes that the requirement of publication of the initiative as before the start of the debate step takes certain particularities in the case of laws approving international treaties. Indeed, as it has planned constitutional jurisprudence, [46] the work of the Congress in this area is limited to the approval or rejection of the international instrument, unless exceptional modification possibilities related to the possibility of including reservations or interpretative declarations, in the Treaties permit. This restriction is what explains the provisions of Article 217 of the Rules of Congress, which provides that the conditions of the legislative process on international treaties. That rule provides that under that procedure (i) are not eligible proposals for approval, deferral or reserve, the latter only in the case of instruments providing for that possibility or the content as well admit it; and (ii) the text of the Treaties can not be amended.
It is, in this perspective, to a general rule of intangibility of the text of the international instrument, which means that the text of the articles shall be kept unchanged during the course of the legislative process. This conclusion, according to the Chamber, we infer that in order to be preached breach of the requirement of advertising report presentation in the case of the procedure itself laws approving Treaty, should be exposed substantive reasons that convincingly demonstrate the impossibility of know the contents of the international instrument prior to its discussion. That to the extent that the scope restricted modification by Congress, causes the text of the draft does not suffer alterations during discussion and approval, other possibilities in any exceptional case provided for in Article 217 of the Act 5th 1992. on this topic, Case C-665/07, outlined earlier stated:
"on the other hand, the rule of intangibility of the text of international treaties to infer that the criterion of publication paper report before the announcement, it must be analyzed with criteria consistent with the very nature of a law approving an international instrument.
Indeed, as it considered the constitutional jurisprudence in the processing of a law approving the International Treaty, the work of Congress is limited to the approval or rejection of the same, except the possibilities provided in Article 217 of Regulation of Congress [47].
Therefore you have to, the announcement serves to warn Congress of the bill already known, having been published the draft law approving the Treaty containing the full text of the international instrument, in the Gazette congressional.
It can then infer that in this kind of laws approving treaties, knowledge of the text by the members of the Senate, met with the publication in the Gazette of Congress, for which, in turn, meet the constitutional purpose of the ad.
In Ruling C-1151 of 2005 [48] found that "given the special nature of public laws approving treaties, the legislature can not alter the content of these introducing new clauses because its function is to approve or disapprove the whole Treaty [49].
If the Treaty is multilateral, it is possible to interpretative declarations, and, unless expressly prohibited, reservations can also be introduced which do not affect the object and purpose of the Treaty [50].
This perspective, knowledge of the bill, by publication in the Gazette of Congress, allows members of the legislative text cell knowledge of the International Treaty, as pre-legislative process. Consequently, the charge for breach of the requirement of advertising paper report must demonstrate sufficiently the impossibility of knowing the same content of the instrument. This, under the ban amendment by the Congress. "

As noted, arguments of this nature are not present in the considerations set out by the Attorney General. In contrast, the analysis presented to suggest that the procedure prior to the discussion and approval of the bill during its consideration in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives guaranteed, appropriately, congressmen knew the report presentation and proposed previously articulated to the respective debate began.
Therefore, the budget deliberative rationality protected through the principle of publicity was fulfilled in the matter under consideration.
5.2. However, the Court up to contrary conclusions regarding compliance with the requirement of prior to the vote on the bill during the proceedings in the first debate of the House of Representatives ad. To support this assertion, the Chamber must focus on determining the conditions under which the announcement was made at the meeting of 29 March 2006. Thus, it has to be at that meeting the Secretary of the Commission, untimely and without any instruction by the President of the legislative cell, he listed a group of bills, including Senate number 075 2005, 221 2005 House, corresponding to the case under analysis, under the simple term "project Announcement". This single expression, however, does not provide any clarity on the purpose of the list of projects, much less on the determination, at least discernible, from the date on which the vote of the bills concerning test [51] would be made .
Similarly, secondly, the Chamber finds that the context of the session commented not only identifies the date the discussion and voting on the bill would be made, but it is misleading to all lights.
In this regard, it is noted that the session ended March 29, 2006, the President of the Commission convened the following for "next Wednesday", that is, on 5 April 2006. However, this intervention (i) omits any reference to what were the bills to be submitted for discussion and voting at that future meeting; (Ii) it is inaccurate, given that the next meeting of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives took place on April 19, 2006, date in which was discussed and approved the Draft Law No. 075 of 2005 Senate 221 2005 House, as an opportunity to verify in paragraph 2.2.3 was had. This provided.
On this particular need, it should be noted that as certified to the Corporation by the Secretary of the Second Committee of the Senate, the legislative body did not session on 5 and 12 April 2006, due to that "although the meeting on March 29, 2006, Act No. 17 is convened for Wednesday would be on April 5, 2006, on file, there is no documentation which was not done" [ 52]. Similarly, he said that "on Wednesday, April 12, 2006, there was no session Easter break ground staff (circular Presidency Chamber of March 22, 2006)" [53].
In conclusion, in a particular way for processing in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives and taking as its starting point the content of the Act beyond its simple subjective assessment, contained in the certificate issued by the Secretary of that legislative cell, is to a procedural error. In this regard, the Court observes that the notification made by the Secretary of the Commission, under the name "Project Announcement" although in principle does not have the express authorization of the President, may be accepted that was under his acquiescence. However, the possible validation of how the enunciation of the bills was made does not obviate the fact that it has been made at an intermediate point in the session, long before the convening of the next session by President, what happened at the end of the meeting. This precision is important, as it allows to conclude the absence of any connection between the announcement by the Secretary of the Commission and call for the next session, a link that had existed would discern about the date on which would take place the voting and discussion of the draft law material analysis.

The factual evidence of what happened at the meeting of 29 March 2006 provides, in the opinion of the Chamber, sufficient support to the above conclusions. As noted in the legal basis 2.2., The enunciation of the projects undertaken by the Secretariat two propositions made after approved by the members of the Commission.
Once verified these votes, the representatives forward the debate of political control resulting from the problems in border matters with Ecuador, activity that the entire session was devoted. Finally, after conclusion of the interventions of the case, the President informed the members of the Commission some scheduled with the Foreign Ministry and called for the next session meetings, using the term "next Wednesday." Warned this sequence, the Court notes that the call for the next session, own context element of the legislative process does not provide any parameters to enable relate enunciation of projects undertaken by the Secretariat of the Commission at the beginning of the session under study under the conditions of time and place mentioned above.
The way the meeting of 29 March 2006 was developed, and things, breaches the conditions set by the jurisprudence of this Court prior to the constitutionality of the discussion and approval of bills ad. Note how the list made by the Secretary of the Commission does not grant element of any judgment about his relationship with compliance with the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 160 CP also analyzed the session in context, it is not possible to deduce that the Representatives They shall have been informed about the projects that would be discussed and voted on at the next meeting of the Commission, given the lack of connectedness between the announcement and the call made by the President, according opportunity to point out he had.
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that in this case the Second Committee of the House of Representatives made a similar defect identified by the Court in 013/07 and 057/07 Cars, outlined in the foundation 4.4. of this decision, cases in which it was found that the Secretary of the Commission made a list of bills, without the purpose of it and their connectedness with the activities to be held in the next session is determined. Therefore, the same legal solution consisting in declaring the existence of a defect in the formation of Law from 1108 to 1106 is imposed.
Finally, in this instance the analysis must be repeated, as it has done this Court decisions have addressed on the subject and to the systematic failure [54] the requirement of prior discussion and vote announcement, need Congress to implement appropriate procedures designed to comply with the requirement in the final paragraph of Article 160 CP So legislatures should ensure that the ad for voting and discussion of the bills corresponding to certain minimum requirements requirements. These conditions must be addressed, in any case, that (i) the announcement for the discussion takes place in each of the instances of legislative procedure involving the vote of initiatives; (Ii) is conducted by the president of the chamber or commission, or under its instructions, in a separate session and after that at which the vote on the draft approval and must be done; (Iii) the announcement is expressed in a manner that clearly identifies the date of the meeting at which the discussion and voting on the bill in question will be made.
5.3. Before check of vice in the legislative procedure, the Court must determine whether it is remediable nature. In this regard, according to the unified position of the law applicable to the matter, it must be the irregularity presented falls within the assumptions of remediableness provided by the Corporation, as (i) the defect occurred during the third debate of the procedure, this that is, when he had already verified project approval in the Senate, thereby fulfilling one of the structural stages of the formation process of law; and (ii) voting during the entire proceedings were unanimous, without which run parallel somehow substantially to the original version of the bill filed by the national government opposition, why there is no evidence of the violation of the rights of minorities parliamentary.

View of the above and in a similar manner as ordered by this Court in previous decisions, [55] the Court shall return the draft to the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, a body in which the procedural error was verified, in order to resume the processing of the bill, giving effect to the listing for voting provisions of final paragraph of Article 160 Superior and in accordance with the rules expressed in this decision.
In that sense, as provided in paragraph CP Article 241 and Article 202 of Law 5 of 1992, the Court granted to the House a maximum term of 30 days from the date of notification of this decision , to proceed to remedy the defect. To this end, in one of the sessions of the Constitutional Commission vote on the draft for a future date to be announced, informing the representatives the issue of the Gazette of Congress in which was published the paper for the first debate in the aforementioned Commission or, if the president of the legislative cell deems appropriate, through the distribution of copies of it. Verified
this process, Congress will have until December 16, 2007, date that ends the first session of the current legislature, to complete the formation process of the law. In this regard it should be clarified, as it has declared the constitutional jurisprudence, that an order of this nature is compatible with the prohibition contained in Article 162 CP, since the limit of two terms applies only to the original formation of the law, but it may not be extended to additional deadlines set by the Constitutional Court in order to remedy procedural problems [56].
After the procedure stocked in Congress and presidential approval in the terms set out in the Constitution, the law should be sent to the Court to decide on the constitutionality of the Act, as provided for in Article 241 paragraph Superior.
On this last point, it should be noted that the presidential approval, while approvingly refers to the same act subject to analysis, it will not catch the change in the identification of the law. In this regard, the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, when exercising the jurisdiction provided for in Article 8 of Decree 2719 of 2000, keep the number of Law 1108 of 27 December 2006. This was due
that, as this Court has held, [57] the correction of a defect in the legislative process by Congress does not contract modification with respect to the nominal identification of the project and passing the resulting law. DECISION
:
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court, DECIDES
:
First. For General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, let him return to the presidency of the House of Representatives Law 1108 of 27 December 2006, by which the "Inter-American Convention against Terrorism", signed in the city of Bridgetown approved, Barbados, the three (3) June two thousand and two (2002), in the thirty-second regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in order to process the correction of procedural defect identified in this decision.
Second. Treat yourself to the Second Standing Committee Constitutional Chamber of Representatives within 30 days from the date of notification of this order to the Presidency of the same, to remedy the defect detected in this decision.
Third. Once corrected the defect that the preamble of this decision referred to the House of Representatives have until December 16, 2007, to meet the later stages of the legislative process. Then the President of the Republic shall have the period specified in the Charter to sanction the bill.
Room. Completed the previous procedure, the President of Congress sent to the Court Act 1108 of 2006, for a final decision on its constitutionality.
Cópiese, report, please insert in the Gazette of the Constitutional Court and enforcement.
Rodrigo Escobar Gil, chairman;
JAIME ARAÚJO RENTERÍA (CON dissenting opinion);
JOSÉ MANUEL CEPEDA ESPINOSA,
JAIME CORDOBA TRIVIÑO, GOAT
MARCO GERARDO MONROY, NILSON
PINILLA PINILLA,
HUMBERTO ANTONIO SIERRA PORTO,
Catalina Botero Marino, AGNES CLARA
VARGAS HERNANDEZ,
Judges;
Sáchica MENDEZ MARTHA VICTORIA,
Secretary General. ***

1. On this, the intervention refers to the judgments C-307/04 and T-729/02.

2. In support of these claims, the Attorney General uses some extracts of the Judgment C- 127/93.
3. In this section, intervention refers to the considerations made by the Court in the Judgment C-037/04 concerning the review of constitutionality of the Law 808/03, approving the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism .
4. Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-695/02.
5. To this effect, the Attorney General referred to the Sentences C-140/98, C-861/01 and C-688/02.
6. Judgment C-688
2002. 7. Cfr. Folios 259 to 264 Notebook tests 1.
8. Cfr. Folios 281-282 test notebook 1.
9. Cfr. Folio 26 of the main notebook.
10. Cfr. Congress Gazette 82/06 p. 3.
11. Ibid p. 4.
12. Cfr. Folios 59-62 test notebook 1.
13. Cfr. Folio 1 Notebook tests 1.
14. Cfr. Folio 301 Notebook 1.
15 tests. It is important to note that consistency in comment refers to "15 November 2006". However, the Court understands that this is an involuntary typing error, since the information in the certification allows easily infer that this is the meeting of 15 November 2005.
16. Cfr. Folios 14 (back) to 15 test notebook 2.
17. Cfr. Folios 1-2 Notebook 2.
18 tests. Cfr. Folios 53 (back) to 54 notebook 2.
19 tests. Cfr. Folio 72N to 72O notebook 3.
20 tests. Cfr. Folio notebook 3 3.
21 tests. Cfr. Folios 124-125 Notebook 3.
22 tests. Cfr. Folio 128 Notebook 3.
23 tests. Cfr. Folio 111 Notebook 3.
24 tests. Cfr. Congress Gazette 459/06 p. 43.
25. Ibid, p. 64 26 Cf. Folio 144 Notebook 3.
27 tests. Cfr. Folio 172 Notebook 3.
28 tests. Cfr. Folio 187 Notebook 3.
29 tests. Cf. Constitutional Court, Case C-386/96. This precedent is reiterated in Judgment C- 915/01, concerning the automatic review of constitutionality of the Law 638/01, through which the "ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA AND THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN MODIFYING approved tHE CONVENTION oN NATIONALITY oF TWENTY (27) JUNE NINETEEN SEVENTY-NINE (1979) ", signed in Bogotá, DC, the fourteen (14) September in 1998 (1998), and" EXCHANGE oF LETTERS BETWEEN tHE TWO GOVERNMENTS tO FIX tHE TITLE aND tHE FIRST PROTOCOL preambular paragraph, "the twenty-seven (27) September in 1999 (1999)"
30. Cf. Constitutional Court, Case C-915/01 legal basis 5.
31.
32 Ibid. For this purpose, the Court will use the collection of this constitutional precedent made in the Auto 057/07. In that decision, the Chamber ordered return to Congress Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "through which the approved" Convention on the Notice or Transfer Abroad of Judicial Documents or Extrajudicial in Civil or Commercial Matters " I made in the Hague on November 15, 1965, "because it failed precisely the requirement of prior notice of the bills.
33. On this particular collection is available recently by the Court in Order 311/06. On this occasion, plenary identified a fundamentally flawed in the announcement for the vote on third reading of the legislative process that ended with the enactment of Law 1017 of 2006, "through which the 'Convention on Laundering, approved and confiscation of the proceeds of crime ', made in Strasbourg on 8 November 1990 ". He therefore ordered to return the rule to the House of Representatives, to remedy a process in the sense of correcting the defect in the announcement of the vote in the Second Committee of the congressional instance.
34. Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-576/06.
35. In this regard, the Auto 311/06 refers to the judgments C-400/05, C-473/05, C-1151-1105 C-322/06, C-576/06, like the Auto 089/05.
36. On these jurisprudential rules, Cf. Constitutional Court, Auto 311/06.
37. Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-473/05.
38. Cf. Constitutional Court ruling C-1040-1005 39 Cf. Constitutional Court, Auto 311/06.
40. Ibid.
41. Needless to point out that the specific alluded to the Court in the judgments C-553/04 and C-661 2004 circumstances are not met in this case because the same was an announcement effectively well for the next plenary session ( judgment C-553/04 MP Alvaro Tafur Galvis. SV Jaime Araújo Rentería) either the previous and some knowledge of Congressmen on the conduct of voting (judgment C-661 of 2004 MP Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra. SV Jaime Araújo Rentería).

42. Cf. Constitutional Court Order 053/07.
43. Cf. Constitutional Court, Case C-576/06.
44. Cf. Constitutional Court, auto A-311/06.
45. Similarly, according to the certification issued by the Secretary of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, "Accessed record Bill (...) which lies at the office file of Congress, the folder control correspondence of the time and folders containing documents Nos. 17 and 18 of 29 March and 19 April 2006 respectively records, does not show any document that allows us to establish the distribution of copies of the report presentation between members of the commission previously the meeting of 29 March 2006, in which the announcement for the discussion and approval of bill number 2005 075 Senate was performed, 221 of 2005 House, (...) ". Cfr. Folio 70 Notebook 2.
46 tests. On this subject can be studied, among other statements, C-916/01, C-1151/05 and C-276/06.
47. The article pointed states: "Article 217. CONDITIONS IN YOUR STEP. They may be submitted no proposals for approval, deferral or reservation to international treaties and conventions. The text of the treaties can not be amended.
Booking Proposals may only be made to the treaties and agreements which provide for such possibility or the contents so admits. These proposals, as well as the deferral, follow the procedure established for the amendments in the ordinary legislative process.
The committees raise plenary, in accordance with the general rules, reasoned proposals on whether to grant or not the requested authorization. "
48. MP Manuel José Cepeda.
49. Pursuant to Article 204 of the Rules of Congress, bills to ratify international treaties are handled by the ordinary or common legislative procedure, with the specificities established in the Charter (on the initiation of the process of law in the Senate the Republic Article 154, CN) and the regulations on the possibility of presenting proposals for non-approval, postponement or reservation to international treaties and conventions (art. 217 of the Act 5 of 1992). Regarding this possibility, in Judgment C-227 of 1993, MP: Jorge Arango Mejía, the Court noted that proposals may be submitted not approval, postponement or reserve during the processing of a bill approving the treaty, respect international treaties and conventions.
50. Article 19 of the 1969 Convention on Law of Treaties says:
"A State may make a reservation when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving a treaty or accede to it, unless:
a) the reservation is prohibited by the treaty;
B) the treaty provides that only specified reservations, which do not include the reservation in question (...) "In practice conventional solutions are diverse: some treaties prohibit any bookings ( as the Montego Bay Convention of 1982 on the law of the Sea or the conventions of New York and Rio de Janeiro on Biodiversity and Climate Change); others authorize reservations on certain provisions only (eg Article 42 of the Refugee Convention of 1951) and some exclude certain categories of reserves (such as Article 64 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting reserves vague). Generally, a reservation expressly permitted by the final clauses of the treaty need not be approved or accepted by other States (Article 20, paragraph 1st the Vienna Conventions of 1969 and 1986).
51. This procedure contrasts with the formula adopted in the other stages of the legislative process. Indeed, in each of which the announcement was made in accordance with the instructions given by the Chairman of the Committee or Plenary accordingly. Similarly, when the announcement was made said the same was done in order to list the bills to be submitted for discussion and voting at the next session. In this regard, legal Cfr.Fundamento 2.
52. Cfr. Folio 69 notebook tests 2.
53. Ibid.

54. So, for this year the Court has issued five orders in which it has ordered the return of the legislative file to Congress, so that defects relating to the previous announcement of the discussion and voting are remedied, all occurred in the processing of projects approving law of international treaties in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives. On this, are available cars A-013/07, A-053/07, A-078/07, A-119/07 and A-145/07.
55. Cf. Constitutional Court, Case C-576/06 and autos A-311/06, A-013/07, A-057/07.
56. Cf. Constitutional Court, auto A-089/05.
57. Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment C-863/06 and Auto A-018/07 and A-057/07. On the particular issue of the double numbering of the law, after the correction of a procedural defect, the judgment stipulated the following:
"The presidential approval is limited to" approve the project concerned "by the" Government "and" attest to their authenticity. " In addition, according to Decree 2719 of 2000, the numbering is given on "already enacted laws" for being such numbering law, a procedure of an administrative nature to be done "keeping an indefinite and non-numeric sequence per year" of according to the requirement established by Article 194 of Act 5 of 1992. || The constitutional jurisprudence in previous situations that was returned to Congress a law to be remedied vitiated by procedural defects, realizes that generally the process of correction has been respected law number initially assigned. This is the case, for example, the Judgment C-607 of 1992 (MP Alejandro Martinez Caballero), in which the 1st Act of 1992 suffered from procedural defect, was returned to Congress. After being remedied in the proceedings and passed in a second chance, he respected his number of original law. So the Constitutional Court, once the procedural defect which fell on the 1st Act of 1992 corrected the declared constitutional.
In the sanction, the national government, with signatures of the President of the Republic and the Minister of Government of time, sanctioned corrected the draft law, as follows:
"In compliance with the orders of the Constitutional Court, the Government endorses the acts for which the Congress corrected the procedural errors it incurred in issuing Law 1 of 1992 ". || In the present case, the Court notes the following:
(i) the first issue of law - 2004 869 -that which identifies the object law approving the control exercised in this process;
(Ii) the will of the Legislator, in compliance with Auto 089 of 2005, was to correct the formal defect found by the Corporation in the formation of Law 896 of 2004;
(Iii) Bill always corresponded to the same, that is, the Senate 212/03, 111/03 House, as can be confirmed in all the presentations and discussions that were dispensed in Congress, and referral to presidential approval. || However, an administrative error was made in the numbering, having been assigned to a second number to the same law after being vice remedied in forming it. However the error does not change the content of the law and affects the process of its formation in the Congress. For the Court therefore this analysis constitutionality means carried on Law 896 of 2004 which adopted the "Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia for the recovery of cultural property and other specific stolen, illegally imported or exported ", signed in the city of La Paz, twenty (20) days of August of the year two thousand and one (2001)".


Related Laws