Through Which The "basic Agreement On Technical And Scientific Cooperation Between The Government Of The Republic Of Guatemala And The Government Of The Republic Of Colombia", Made In The City Of Lima, Is Approved On November 23, 2001

Original Language Title: Por medio de la cual se aprueba el "Convenio Básico de Cooperación Técnica y Científica entre el Gobierno de la República de Guatemala y el Gobierno de la República de Colombia", hecho en la ciudad de Lima, el 23 de noviembre de 2001

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 1254 2008
(November 27)
Official Journal No. 47.47805 of August 18, 2010 CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

Through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical Cooperation is approved and science between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on 23 November 2001. Summary

Term Notes Effective Jurisprudence


THE CONGRESS OF COLOMBIA
having regard to the text of the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, made in Lima" 23 November 2001, which reads:
(to be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).
BASIC AGREEMENT ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
The Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, hereinafter the Parties;
Desiring to strengthen the traditional ties of friendship existing between the two countries;
CONSIDERING that both Parties have been carrying out actions of technical and scientific cooperation under the Agreement on Technical Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogotá, Colombia, on July 13, 1976;
CONSCIOUS of their common interest in promoting and promoting technical and scientific and reciprocal advantages that would result from cooperation in areas of mutual interest progress;
CONVINCED of the importance of updating and strengthening mechanisms that contribute to the development of this process and the need to implement programs of technical and scientific cooperation, that are effective in economic and social progress of their respective countries,
They have agreed as follows: Article I.

1. The objective of this Convention is to promote technical and scientific cooperation between the two countries through the formulation and implementation, by mutual agreement, programs and projects in these areas.
2. In developing these programs and projects, the Parties shall take into account the priorities set out in their respective development plans and support involvement in their implementation, organizations and institutions in the public, private and social sectors as well as universities , institutions of scientific and technical research and non-governmental organizations.
Likewise, the Parties shall take into account the importance in the implementation of national development projects and promote the implementation of joint technological development, linking research centers with industrial entities of the two countries.
3. The Parties may, based on this Agreement, conclude supplementary agreements for technical and scientific cooperation in specific areas of common interest.

ARTICLE II.
1. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Parties shall jointly develop biennial programs in accordance with the priorities of both countries in the field of their respective plans and strategies for economic and social development.
2. Each program must specify objectives, financial and technical resources, work schedules, as well as areas where projects will be executed. They must also specify the operational and financial powers of each of the Parties obligations.
3. Each program will be evaluated at mid-term of the Joint Commission in the framework of a bilateral technical working meeting.

ARTICLE III.
1. In the implementation of the programs will be encouraged and will include, as the Parties deem it necessary, the participation of multilateral and regional technical cooperation agencies and institutions of third countries.
2. The Parties may, whenever they deem necessary and by mutual agreement, seek financing and participation of international organizations and other countries in the implementation of programs and projects to be agreed in accordance with this Convention.

ARTICLE IV.
For the purposes of this Agreement, technical and scientific cooperation between the Parties may take the following forms:
a) Exchange of specialists, researchers and university professors;
B) Internships and training for professional training;
C) joint and coordinated programs Making and / or research projects and / or technological development linking research centers and industry;
D) Exchange of information on scientific and technological research;
E) Development of joint cooperation activities in third countries;

F) Granting scholarships for professional specialization and intermediate studies of technical training;
G) organization of seminars, workshops and conferences;
H) Provision of consulting services;
I) Shipment of equipment and necessary for the implementation of specific projects material and
j) Any other form agreed upon by the parties.


ARTICLE V. In order to have an adequate monitoring mechanism of cooperation actions provided for in this Agreement and establishing the best conditions for its implementation, the Parties shall establish a Joint guatemaltecacolombiana Commission, comprising representatives of both governments, as well as those institutions whose activities directly affect the field of technical and scientific cooperation of both countries.
This Joint Committee will be chaired by the Ministry of Planning and Programming of the Presidency, by Guatemala, and the Colombian Agency for International Cooperation, in conjunction with the Directorate General of International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by of Colombia, and will have the following functions:
a) to evaluate and define priority areas in which specific projects of technical and scientific cooperation would be feasible;
B) To study and recommend programs and projects to be implemented;
C) Review, analyze and approve the biennial programs of technical and scientific cooperation;
D) Supervise the proper observance and implementation of this Agreement and formulate recommendations to the Parties as it deems pertinent.

ARTICLE VI.
1. The Joint Commission shall meet every two years alternately in Guatemala and Colombia, on the dates previously agreed upon through official channels.
2. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, each Party may submit for the consideration of the Other, at any time, specific projects of technical and scientific cooperation for appropriate analysis and, where appropriate, approval. Parties may also convened by mutual agreement and when they deem it necessary, extraordinary meetings of the Joint Commission.

ARTICLE VII.
Both Parties shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the lessons learned by their nationals as a result of the cooperation that Article IV referred to replicate internally to their respective institutions to contribute to economic and social development their countries.

ARTICLE VIII.
In sending personnel to Article IV refers, international transport costs of one of the Parties to the territory of the other, shall be borne by the party ship. The cost of lodging, meals and local transportation will be covered by the receiving Party, unless expressly specified otherwise or is the subject of supplementary agreements Article I, paragraph 3, of this Convention refers.

ARTICLE IX.
Agencies and institutions responsible for the execution of supplementary agreements provided for in Article I, paragraph 3, of this Convention national institutions must report to the Joint Committee the results of its work and submit proposals for the further development of cooperation .


Article X. Each Party shall provide the necessary staff out facilities for entry, residence and who are officially involved in the cooperation projects. Such personnel shall be subject to national provisions in force in the receiving country and may not engage in any activity unrelated to their duties, or receive any remuneration, outside established without the prior authorization of the competent authorities.

ARTICLE XI.
Parties all administrative and fiscal facilities necessary for the entry and exit of equipment and materials to be used in carrying out the projects in accordance with its national legislation be awarded.

ARTICLE XII.
In connection with the exchange of information and its dissemination, laws and other provisions in force in both States shall be observed as well as the respective international commitments and the rights and obligations agreed in relation to third parties. When information is provided by a Party, that may indicate, when appropriate, restrictions for broadcast.

ARTICLE XIII.
The Contracting Parties undertake to:
To grant and experts, technical instructors receive their countries, in implementing this Convention, privileges and special privileges granted to international experts Technical Assistance accordance with regulations force for United Nations experts.

ARTICLE XIV.

1. This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the second of the Notes by which the Parties notify each have complied with the requirements of national legislation to this end and will have an initial term of five years, renewable for equal periods, after evaluation.
2. This Agreement may be amended by mutual consent and the agreed amendments shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties, by an exchange of diplomatic notes, meeting the requirements of national legislation to communicate.
3. Any Party may, at any time, terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the other Party through diplomatic channels six months in advance.
4. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the completion of programs and projects which have been formalized during its term.
5. Any dispute that may arise between the parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall be resolved through direct negotiations between them. If these negotiations are unsuccessful, the dispute shall be submitted to the other means recognized by international law peaceful solution.
6. Upon entry into force this Convention shall terminate on the Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogotá, Colombia, on July 13, 1976, subject to the cooperation activities scheduled and implementation of supplementary agreements that are running.
Made in Lima, on 23 November two thousand and one, in two original copies in Spanish, both texts being equally authentic.

RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, March 5, 2002
Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for Constitutional effects.
(Sgd.)
The Alvaro Uribe Foreign Minister,
(Sgd.) Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, on 23 November 2001. Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, the November 23, 2001, that the first article of this law is passed, will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
Given in Bogotá, DC, ...
honorable Presented to Congress by the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Fernando Araújo Perdomo, Minister of Foreign Affairs
. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, March 5, 2002
Approved. Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for Constitutional effects.
(Sgd.)
The Alvaro Uribe Foreign Minister,
(Sgd.) Guillermo Fernandez de Soto.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, on 23 November 2001. Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7 of 1944, the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, the November 23, 2001, that the first article of this law is passed, will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
The President of the honorable Senate, Javier Enrique Cáceres Leal
.
The Secretary General of the honorable Senate, Emilio Otero
Dajud. LAW
1254
through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" was approved, made in the city of Lima, November 23, 2001.

In accordance with the provisions Auto A-267/09 dated September 2, 2009 - Record LAT-340, of the Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court, which in its relevant part said:
"( ...)
"Then the President of the Republic shall have the period specified in the Charter to sanction the bill (maintaining the same numbering of the law approving that is returned)," the date is sanctioned here law 1254 November 27, 2008, through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, 23 approved November 2001, retaining its initial numbers and dates.
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA - NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
published and enforced.
Run, after review by the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 241-10 of the Constitution.
Given in Bogotá, DC, on August 18, 2010.

CALDERON JUAN MANUEL SANTOS Minister of Foreign Affairs Maria Angela Holguin
CUÉLLAR. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT


GENERAL SECRETARIAT Office number OPC-343/09
Bogotá, DC, twenty-six (26) November two thousand and nine (2009)

Doctor MANUEL J. VIVES ENRÍQUEZ President


Second Standing Committee House of Representatives Constitutional


City Reference: Record number Lat- 340. Act 1254 of 27 November 2008. by
whereby the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, was adopted on 23 November 2001
Note: When replying please quote the file number, office and magistrate. Respected Doctor
:
demurely and order to comply with the provisions of the Full Court in Auto 267 of 2009 number two (2) September 2009, which was the Reporter
the honorable Judge, doctor JORGE I. Pretelt Chaljub, I carefully let me tell you, as ordered in the provided back described, the relevant part then transcribe:
"First. By General Secretary of the Corporation, go back to the Presidency of the House of Representatives Law 1254 of November 27, 2008, through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala approved and the Government of the Republic of Colombia "; made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001; in order to remedy the procedural defect identified in this decision.
Second. Treat yourself to the Second Standing Committee Constitutional Chamber of Representatives within thirty (30) days from the notification of this order to the Presidency of the same, to remedy the defect detected in this decision.
Third. Once corrected the defect that the preamble of this decision referred to the House of Representatives have until June 20, 2010, 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 by applicable law, to finally decide on its constitutionality. "
Sincerely, Victoria Sáchica
Martha Mendez, Secretary General
. Annex
copy of the order with 31 pages. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT


A ROOM FULL-267/09
Reference: LAT-340
Record informal Law Review 1254, 2008, "through which the 'Convention is approved basic Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ', made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001 ".
Magistrate: JORGE IGNACIO Pretelt Chaljub
Bogotá, DC, two (2) September two thousand and nine (2009)
The Plenum of the Constitutional Court, composed of Justices doctors Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, Mauricio Gonzalez Cuervo, Juan Carlos Henao Pérez, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Maria Victoria Street Correa, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto and Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva, in exercise of its constitutional powers and in compliance with the requirements and procedures established in Decree 2067 of 1991, has issued the following Order in informal revision of the Law 1254 of 2008, "through which the approved" Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001".
1. BACKGROUND

In compliance with the provisions of paragraph 10 of Article 241 of the CP, the December 1, 2009, the Legal Secretary of the Presidency of the Republic sent a certified copy of Constitutional Law 1254 of 2008 to the Court "By whereby the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001 "is approved.
By Order of December 15, 2008, the Substantiating Justice took cognizance of the Law of the reference and notified the General Secretariats of the House and Senate to which addressed all information given concerning the legislative process under the law study. In addition, he was ordered to communicate the process to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Colciencias and Universidad del Rosario.
In the same way, because once the evidence was received necessary to clarify certain points, especially with regard to compliance with Article 160 Superior, by order of twenty (20) February 2009, the Office of the Judge Speaker he requested additional testing.
The formalities indicated for this type of action, the Court proceeds to render its decision.
2. TEXT OF THE CONVENTION IS REVIEWED AND ITS
Law Approving the full text of the Law approving the Protocol is transcribed:
"ACT OF 2008
1254 (November 27)
Official Journal number 47 186 27 November 2008. CONGRESS oF tHE REPUBLIC

through which the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia" approved, made in the city of Lima, on 23 November 2001. CONGRESS COLOMBIA

having regard to the text of the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001, which reads:
(to be transliterated: photocopy of the full text of that instrument is attached).
BASIC AGREEMENT ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
The Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia, hereinafter the Parties;
Desiring to strengthen the traditional ties of friendship existing between the two countries;
CONSIDERING that both Parties have been carrying out actions of technical and scientific cooperation under the Agreement on Technical Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala signed in Bogotá, Colombia, on July 13, 1976;
CONSCIOUS of their common interest in promoting and promoting technical and scientific and reciprocal advantages that would result from cooperation in areas of mutual interest progress;
CONVINCED of the importance of updating and strengthening mechanisms that contribute to the development of this process and the need to implement programs of technical and scientific cooperation that are effective in economic and social progress of their respective countries, Han
agreed as follows: Article I.

1. The objective of this Convention is to promote technical and scientific cooperation between the two countries through the formulation and implementation, by mutual agreement, programs and projects in these areas.
2. In developing these programs and projects, the Parties shall take into account the priorities set out in their respective development plans and support the participation in its implementation, organizations and institutions in the public, private and social sectors as well as universities, institutions of scientific and technical research and non-governmental organizations.
Likewise, the Parties shall take into account the importance in the implementation of national development projects and promote the implementation of joint technological development, linking research centers with industrial entities of the two countries.
3. The Parties may, based on this Agreement, enter into supplementary agreements Technical and Scientific Cooperation in specific areas of common interest.
ARTICLE II.
1. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Parties shall jointly develop biennial programs in accordance with the priorities of both countries in the field of their respective plans and strategies for economic and social development.

2. Each program must specify objectives, financial and technical resources, work schedules, as well as areas where projects will be executed. They must also specify the operational and financial powers of each of the Parties obligations.
3. Each program will be evaluated at mid-term of the Joint Commission in the framework of a bilateral technical working meeting.
ARTICLE III.
1. In the implementation of the programs will be encouraged and will include, as the Parties deem it necessary, the participation of multilateral and regional technical cooperation agencies and institutions of third countries.
2. The Parties may, whenever they deem necessary and by mutual agreement, seek financing and participation of international organizations and other countries in the implementation of programs and projects to be agreed in accordance with this Convention.
ARTICLE IV.
For the purposes of this Agreement, technical and scientific cooperation between the Parties may take the following forms:
a) Exchange of specialists, researchers and university professors;
B) Internships and training for professional training;
C) joint and coordinated programs Making and / or research projects and / or technological development linking research centers and industry;
D) Exchange of information on scientific and technological research;
E) Development of joint cooperation activities in third countries;
F) Granting scholarships for professional specialization and intermediate studies of technical training;
G) organization of seminars, workshops and conferences;
H) Provision of consulting services;
I) Shipment of equipment and necessary for the implementation of specific projects material and
j) Any other form agreed upon by the Parties.

ARTICLE V. In order to have an adequate monitoring mechanism of cooperation actions provided for in this Agreement and establishing the best conditions for its implementation, the Parties shall establish a Joint Commission Guatemalteca-Colombian, composed of representatives of both governments, as well as those institutions whose activities directly affect the field of technical and scientific cooperation of both countries.
This Joint Committee will be chaired by the Ministry of Planning and Programming of the Presidency, by Guatemala, and the Colombian Agency for International Cooperation, in conjunction with the Directorate General of International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by of Colombia, and will have the following functions:
a) to evaluate and define priority areas in which specific projects of technical and scientific cooperation would be feasible;
B) To study and recommend programs and projects to be implemented;
C) Review, analyze and approve the biennial programs of technical and scientific cooperation;
D) Supervise the proper observance and implementation of this Agreement and formulate recommendations to the Parties as it deems pertinent.
ARTICLE VI.
1. The Joint Commission shall meet every two years alternately in Guatemala and Colombia, on the dates previously agreed upon through official channels.
2. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, each Party may submit for the consideration of the Other, at any time, specific projects of technical and scientific cooperation for appropriate analysis and, where appropriate, approval. Parties may also convened by mutual agreement and when they deem it necessary, extraordinary meetings of the Joint Commission.
ARTICLE VII.
Both Parties shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the lessons learned by their nationals as a result of the cooperation referred to in Article IV, to internally replicate their respective institutions to contribute to economic and social development their countries.
ARTICLE VIII.
In sending staff referred to in Article IV, international transport costs of one Party to the territory of the other, shall be borne by the party ship. The cost of lodging, meals and local transportation will be covered by the receiving Party, unless expressly specified otherwise or is the subject of complementary agreements referred to in Article I, paragraph 3, of this Convention.
ARTICLE IX.
Agencies and institutions responsible for the execution of supplementary agreements provided for in Article I, paragraph 3, of this Convention national institutions must report to the Joint Committee the results of its work and submit proposals for the further development of cooperation .
ARTICLE X.

Each Party shall provide the necessary staff out facilities for entry, residence and who are officially involved in the cooperation projects. Such personnel shall be subject to national provisions in force in the receiving country and may not engage in any activity unrelated to their duties, or receive any remuneration, outside established without the prior authorization of the competent authorities.
ARTICLE XI.
Parties all administrative and fiscal facilities necessary for the entry and exit of equipment and materials to be used in carrying out the projects in accordance with its national legislation be awarded.
ARTICLE XII.
In connection with the exchange of information and its dissemination, laws and other provisions in force in both States shall be observed as well as the respective international commitments and the rights and obligations agreed in relation to third parties. When information is provided by a Party, that may indicate, when appropriate, restrictions for broadcast.
ARTICLE XIII.
The Contracting Parties undertake to:
To grant and experts, technical instructors receive their countries, in implementing this Convention, privileges and special privileges granted to international experts Technical Assistance accordance with regulations force for United Nations experts.
ARTICLE XIV.
1. This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the second of the Notes by which the Parties notify each have complied with the requirements of national legislation to this end and will have an initial term of five years, renewable for equal periods, after evaluation.
2. This Agreement may be amended by mutual consent and the agreed amendments shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties, by an exchange of diplomatic notes, meeting the requirements of their national legislation to communicate.
3. Any Party may, at any time, terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the other Party through diplomatic channels six months in advance.
4. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the completion of programs and projects which have been formalized during its term.
5. Any dispute that may arise between the parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall be resolved through direct negotiations between them. If these negotiations are unsuccessful, the dispute shall be submitted to the other means recognized by international law peaceful solution.
6. Upon entry into force this Convention shall terminate on the Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Guatemala, signed in Bogotá, Colombia, on July 13, 1976, subject to the cooperation activities scheduled and implementation of supplementary agreements that are running.
Made in Lima on 23 November two thousand and one, in two original copies in Spanish, both being equally authentic.
For the Government of the Republic of Guatemala,
Illegible signature.
For the Government of the Republic of Colombia,
Illegible signature. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, March 5, 2002
Approved.
Submit to the consideration of the honorable National Congress for constitutional purposes.

The Alvaro Uribe Foreign Minister, Guillermo Fernandez de Soto
.
DECREES: Article 1.
. Approval of the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, on 23 November 2001. Article 2.
. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 71 of 1944, the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima November 23, 2001, that article 1 of this law is approved, it will force the country from the date the international link is perfect therefrom.
Article 3o. This law applies from the date of publication.
Given in Bogotá, DC, on ... Presented to the Honorable Congress of the Republic by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs Fernando Araújo Perdomo
. RAMA

PUBLIC POWER EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
Bogotá, DC, ... Approved.

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

3 Alvaro Uribe.
INTERVENTIONS 3.1. STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its empowered, intervened in the process of reference and requested the declaration of Constitutionality of the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia "and the Law that approves.
The intervener states that the Convention is to develop the technical and scientific relations between the two nations, based on the principles of equality and mutual benefit, strengthen ties on cooperation in science and technology, and the need to maintain bilateral relations in the framework of cooperation.
It highlights that the instrument maintains the spirit of the Technical Cooperation between "Developing Countries" (TCDC) drawn up by the United Nations as an important tool for solidarity and growth among neighboring countries.
Adds that the conclusion and adoption of this Convention by the Colombian state, is development of constitutional principles enshrined in Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; in which the promotion of internationalization of political, economic and social relations based on equity, national interest, reciprocity and integration, especially with countries in Latin America and the Caribbean is set.
It also indicates the intervening always the domestic law of each country will be respected in their decisions, accepting the provisions of the above article 9, which stipulates that international relations in the state are based on national sovereignty, respect to self-determination of peoples and the recognition of the principles of international law accepted by Colombia.
Likewise, it complies with the provisions of the Constitution regarding the procedural aspects, since Article 189.2 in which stated that the President of the Republic as head of state, chief respected by government and supreme administrative authority, direct international relations.
Finally, it considers that the provisions contained in the Agreement relating to the participation of Colombian scientists abroad and efforts to contribute to the expansion of comprehensive and affordable education to all members of society are own purposes a social state of law which are effective incentives for implementation in agreements such as the one under review.
3.2. INTERVENTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ROSARIO
Universidad del Rosario, through its professor in the area of ​​international law, Dr. Juan Ramon Martinez Vargas, participated in the process reference and requested the declaration of enforceability of "Basic Cooperation Agreement technical and Scientific between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia "and the Act incorporating it.
The intervener points out that this Convention stems from the need to update the Convention Technological Cooperation signed with the Republic of Guatemala in 1976. Under this new agreement, it points out that figures such as the creation of a Joint Commission introduced which it is responsible for monitoring compliance with the obligations of the two States. Likewise, the possibility of exchange of researchers, academics and university professors for technical training and higher studies, among others created.
On the other hand, noted that objectives of the Convention are: achieving regional integration through bilateral treaties that allow the scientific development of the region, promote and encourage access to culture for citizens of the States Parties and ensure the effectiveness of the agreements contained in the instrument.
In these terms, it considers that the Convention developed Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which establishes as a duty of the Colombian State "the internationalization of political, economic, social and ecological on the basis of equality, reciprocity and national interest ". He adds that the instrument materializes "the aspiration of the internationalization of external relations and Latin American integration embodied in Articles 9 and 227, together with the provisions of Articles 67, 70 and 71, in that commit the State to the promotion access to science and technology. "

Finally, he said that Colombia has signed several agreements of this nature with the Republic of Peru, Nicaragua, Chile, Venezuela, among others, which have been found by the Court adjusted to the Constitution.
4. ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCEPT OF THE NATION
The planned procedural opportunity, Mr. Attorney General's Office, Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado presented the concept of rigor to ask the Court the declaration of enforceability of the rules under consideration.
Attorney notes that the procedure to which the 1254 Act of 2008 was submitted was adjusted to constitutional canons.
Regard, notes that the bill surtió regulatory debates, both Senate and the House of Representatives. Also, compliance with the provisions of article 8 of Legislative Act No. 1 of 2003.
With regard to the content of the Treaty which incorporates the 1254 Act 2008 he said the main purpose of this international instrument is continue to strengthen the basis for cooperation of the member countries, thus to achieve a higher degree of competitiveness in a globalized world.
After making a synthesis of the international instrument body considers that it meets the constitutional parameters and mainly develops the concept of integration contained in the Constitution. Indeed, through her "States enter into agreements with the aim of achieving social, economic and political development. Through the signing of the Agreement under consideration seeks to promote and encourage the development and progress of our people through the exchange of training, considering it as a factor of economic development. "
In this regard, the cooperation agreement strengthens the integration process, since it is an important mechanism to encourage and promote cooperation and development channels, which is in line with constitutional principles enshrined in Articles 9, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which guide the foreign policy of the Colombian State. In particular, it considers the Fiscal Vista, the Convention addresses the constitutional obligation of the State to promote integration in the field of technical and scientific cooperation with other nations. So
things, concluded that the content of the Treaty develops and respects the provisions enshrined in the Constitution, "as abiding national sovereignty, seeks to safeguard the higher interests of the state within a framework of reciprocity and national interest".
5. The Court's
5.1. COMPETITION
According to the provisions of paragraph 10 Article 241 of the Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction to establish full control of constitutionality of international treaties and the laws approving them. Law 1254 of 2008 "Through which the approved" Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, 23 November 2001, is passing of a Public Treaty so, both materially and formal, this Court has jurisdiction to further their study via automatic and informal judicial review.
Indeed, the jurisprudence of this Court has established, on many occasions, that the control of constitutionality of public treaties and its laws approving has the following characteristics [1]: "(i) prior to the improvement of the treaty , after approval of Congress and government sanction but; (Ii) automatic, it must be sent directly by the President of the Republic to the Constitutional Court within the government sanction six days; (Iii) integral to the extent that the Court must analyze both the formal aspects and materials law and treaty, confronting them with all the constitutional text; (Iv) has force of res judicata; (V) is a sine qua non for ratification of the relevant agreement, and (vi) a preventive function, because its purpose is to guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution and the compliance with international commitments of the Colombian State "[2] .

As can then be concluded, the characteristics of judicial review of treaties and laws that preclude the subsequent revision approved by way of public action of unconstitutionality, and the judgment that comes to their previous, automatic and comprehensive study, It has res judicata with absolute nature. Consequently, it can not subsequently revived the constitutional debate pretext to introduce new arguments, taking into consideration that the decision of the Corporation relating to the enforceability or unenforceability of law and the treaty covers both the formal and material aspect thereof , confronting them with all the constitutional text.
5.2. SIGNING OF AGREEMENT
The "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001, it was given him executive approval on March 5, 2002, the then President of the Republic, Andrés Pastrana Arango, authorized and ordered to submit to Congress approval of the Agreement by reference. Such authorization, which reference has folio notebook No1 2 test, has been considered by the Court as sufficient to ensure the legitimacy of the signing of an international treaty requirement.
In accordance with that in the judgment C-251 of 1997, presidential approval remedies any possible procedural error in the processing of subscription of an international treaty, while the authority of the head of state, in charge of the direction of international relations of the state, is the only validly recognized to compromise the will of the same on the international stage. In this regard, the Cited said
"The President gave his approval to this treaty executive and decided to submit to the approval of Congress. This presidential confirmation under the law of treaties codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention, in its article 8, remedy any eventual vice representation of the state. This principle is fully applicable in the Colombian constitutional law, since it corresponds to the President of the Republic, as Head of State, direct international relations and celebrate with other States and entities of international law, treaties or conventions (CP art. 189 ord. The 2nd ) ". (Judgment C-251 MP 1997 Alejandro Martinez Caballero).
Accordingly, this aspect the international instrument complies with the constitutional provisions that place led by the President of the Republic the management of international relations.
5.3. Preshipment ISSUES OF CONGRESS OF PROCEEDINGS IN "BASIC AGREEMENT ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA"
The Congress, through Law 900 July 21, 2004, had given approval to the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty (23) November two thousand and one (2001). In these terms, by order of 26 August 2004, in order to exercise judicial review that section 10 of article 241 of the Constitution mandates, the Constitutional Court took the examination of the Convention under study and Law 900 2004 to approve.
However, finding that he had not complied with the requirement set out in Article 8 of Legislative Act number 01, 2003, related to the need that any bill to be announced in a previous session to that in which plans to vote on the project by Auto number a-088 of May 3, 2005, the Plenary Chamber of the Corporation decided to order Congress the legislative process is remade and forwarded again to the Court of Law 900 of 2004 for consideration of constitutionality.

Once again forwarded to the Corporation, is determined that the defect had not been rectified and declared the unconstitutionality of Law 900 of 2004. He said the Corporation at that time "In that vein since under the principle of instrumentality of procedural forms the Court ordered through the General Secretariat referral to the Senate record for the period of thirty (30) days from its arrival to the presidency of the Senate (art. 45 Decree 2067 of 1991) the vice incurred and therefore the vote was remade in second debate in the Plenary of this Legislature, thus fulfilling the requirement set out in Article 8 of Legislative Act number 01 2003 remedied, and this did not happen the next step is to declare the unconstitutionality both Law 900 of 2004, "through which the approved" BASIC AGREEMENT oN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION BETWEEN tHE GOVERNMENT oF tHE REPUBLIC oF GUATEMALA AND tHE GOVERNMENT oF tHE REPUBLIC oF COLOMBIA ", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty (23) November two thousand and one (2001) and the" Law ... of 3 March 2006 "issued for the same purpose in compliance with the Auto A- 088 2005. "
In the same way, and considering that the declaration of unconstitutionality only went on passing and not on the Treaty approved law, the Corporation said: "Needless to note that the decision thus adopted does not entail any determination the constitutionality or otherwise of the Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima, on the twenty (23) November two thousand one (2001) ".
Therefore, the Government resubmitted to Congress, the "Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia", which was finally approved by Congress by Law 1254 of 2008, which today is analyzed by the Corporation.
5.4. STEP OF APPROVAL OF THE CONVENTION
5.4.1. According to the final paragraph of Article 154 of the Charter, "The bills concerning taxes begin its passage through the House of Representatives and relating to international relations in the Senate."
The project culminated in the enactment of Law 1254 of 2008 began its deliberations in the Senate, which was filed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Fernando Araujo. It was assigned the number 18 of 2007, Senate. For this aspect, the process complied with the requirement under the aforementioned constitutional article.
5.4.2. Regarding the remaining procedure, the Constitution does not establish a special procedure for the approval of draft laws approving treaties. Regard, the Court has held:
"It should be noted in relation to this latter aspect that the procedure for issuing laws approving international treaties is the same as the ordinary laws because the Constitution did not foresee a special procedure for them except as to the need to begin its passage in the Senate, as established by the final paragraph of Article 154 of the Charter ". (Judgment C-334 Alvaro Tafur Galvis MP 2002).
Then should the Court to verify compliance with the other formal requirements. there will be a verification of compliance with the debates and the vote first; subsequently, a particular analysis will be performed in relation to the advertisements established in article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003
5.4.3. Proceedings before the Senate
5.4.3.1. The explanatory memorandum to the Government, together with the text of the provisions put to Congress, was published in the Gazette of the 345th Congress on July 26, 2007.
5.4.3.2. The bill was delivered to Senator Jesus Enrique Piñacué Achicué Castañeda, who presented favorable first debate before the Second Committee of the Senate paper. The paper was published in the Congress Gazette number 482 of 28 September 2007.
5.4.3.3. In accordance with article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003, "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 Act No. 07 of October 30, 2007, published in the Gazette number 668 Congress December 18, 2007, the bill was announced as follows "projects to be discussed and voted at the next session (...) bill 2007 18th Senate (...) We quote for tomorrow October 31 at 10:00 am (...) ".
However, as noted in the Act No. 08 of October 31, 2007, published in the Gazette number 668 Congress December 18, 2007, there took place the discussion and approval of the bill in study, but was again announced as follows: "by order of the Chairman of the Second Committee of the Senate of the Republic, announcement discussion and voting on bills for the next session (...) Mr. President, Senator Carlos Emiro Barriga Peñaranda (...) appointment for Wednesday November 7 at 10:00 am for projects ".
5.4.3.4. Indeed, the project was discussed and approved at the meeting of November 7, 2007 (Gazette number 669 Congress December 18, 2007). According to certification by the Secretary of the Second Committee, the project was approved by ten of the thirteen senators who make up the Commission.
5.4.3.5. The paper for the second debate the bill reference was published in the Gazette number 616 Congress of December 3, 2007, being the same speaker Senator Jesus Enrique Castañeda Piñacué Achicué.
5.4.3.6. In compliance with article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003 and as stated in the Act No. 26 of December 10, 2009, published in the Congress Gazette number 58 of 26 February 2008, the project was announced as follows "the projects to discuss and vote in the next Plenary Session are (...) bill 2007 18th Senate." At the end of the session reads: "At 9:30 pm, the Chair adjourned the meeting and calls for Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 11:00 am".
However, the discussion of the bill was not made at the meeting of December 11, 2007, just it stated in the Act No. 27 of this date, published in the Congress Gazette number 59 of 26 February 2008; however, it was again announced as follows: "The Secretariat announced projects will be discussed and adopted at the next session (...) Draft Legislative Act for Second Debate (...) Draft Law No. 18 of 2007 Senate". At the end of the session reads: "Since 9:40 pm, the Chair adjourned the meeting and calls for Wednesday December 12, 2007, at 10:00 am".
5.4.3.7. As stated in the Act No. 28 of December 12, 2007, published in the Gazette of the 60th Congress of February 26, 2008, the project was approved on that date by the majority of 93 Senators, as ratifies the certificate issued by the Secretary General of the Senate of the Republic (certification by the Secretary General of the Senate).
5.4.4. Proceedings before the House of Representatives
5.4.4.1. The bill was filed reference number 236 of 2008 in the House of Representatives. The paper first debate is published in the Gazette of the 150th Congress on April 17, 2008 and designated the rapporteur was the Representative to the Olaya House Fabiola Rivera.
5.4.4.2. The bill was announced for the first debate in the joint session of the Second Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, as seen in the Act number 01 of May 6, 2008, which reads: "ad for the discussion and voting on the bills in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives of the bills (...) bill 2008 House number 236 18 2007 Senate (...) ". And at the end reads: "(...) we quote for the day, Wednesday, May 8, 2008 at 10:00 am in the premises". (Gazette number 631 Congress September 12, 2008).

However, as stated in the Act number 02 of the May 7, 2008, at the joint session of the Second Committees of Senate and House of Representatives published in the Gazette number 632 Congress September 12, 2008, the discussion and approval of the bill under study was not carried out and was again announced: "Notice of bills to be approved in the first debate at the next meeting of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, to comply with article 8 Legislative Act No. 1 of 2003 (...) Draft law No. 236 of 2008 House, 18 2007 Senate (...) the Chairman of the Second Committee "and read to the end" (...) it makes use of the word House, (...) let me quote the honorable Members of the Second chamber Committee for Tuesday May 13, 2008 at 10:00 am ".
Just as he said that despite the visit of a Canadian parliamentarians, the regular meeting would be held this May 13, 2008. It said: "Tuesday 13 come a delegation of 19 Canadian Parliamentarians, who official visit plan to meet with the Second Committee of the Senate and the Second Committee of the House in informal meeting prior to the formal meeting, Mr. President. "
However, on May 13, 2008 the bill was not approved. According certificate signed by the Secretary of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, May 13, 2008, official visit of some Parliamentarians of the Republic of Canada was not conducted formal meeting of the Commission since that day was planned .
Therefore, the bill was approved for first debate on May 14, 2008, as stated in the Act No. 26 of this date, published in the Gazette number 591 Congress Sept. 3, 2008, without it had announced back for that session.
5.4.4.3. The second discussion paper for the draft law the reference was published in the Gazette number 332 Congress June 9, 2008, with presentation of the same Representative to the House, Olaya Fabiola Rivera.
5.4.4.4. The announcement of the vote in the plenary of the House bill, ordered by the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, was initially announced at the meeting of 11 June 2008 in the following terms: "the following projects for the session are announced plenary on Tuesday June 17 at 3:00 pm or session where bills or legislation for the next session (...) projects for second debate (...) bill 2008 236th Chamber debate , 018, 2007 Senate. ". (Act number 117 of 11 June 2008, which was published in the Congress Gazette number 422 of July 17, 2008).
5.4.4.5. As stated in the Act No. 118 of the meeting of 17 June 2008 (Gazette number 324 Congress July 17, 2008), the Plenary of the House of Representatives approved the draft law this reference "by the most of those present in ordinary vote, the Paper for Second Debate "as confirms the certification issued December 18, 2008 by the Secretary General of the House of Representatives.
5.4.5. Constitutionality of the action taken to Law 1254 of 2008
After the previous count, the Court now turns to analyze the constitutionality of the process of approval of Law 1254 of 2008.
5.4.5.1. To begin with, this Court finds that the draft law was published in Congress before being sent to the respective Commission (art. 157-1 CP) approved in first debate in the relevant committees of each chamber (art. 157- 2 CP), approved in second debate in the plenary of each chamber (art. 157-3 CP) and received the appropriate presidential approval (art. 157-4 CP).
5.4.5.2. Between the first and second debate in each of the Chambers spent time not less than eight days, as I commanded Article 160 of the Constitution, as well: the approval in the first debate in the Second Committee of the Senate held on November 7 2007, while the approval at the plenary took place on 12 December 2007. Similarly, the approval in the first debate in the second Committee of the Chamber occurred on May 14, 2008 and the second debate took place on 17 June 2008.
5.4.5.3. On the other hand, between the adoption of the bill in the Senate (12 December 2007) and the initiation of debate in the House of Representatives (17 April 2008) a lapse of not less than fifteen days, as ordered Article 160 of the Constitution.

5.4.5.4. To this is added that the sessions Committee and Plenary were made compliance with the required quorum and the project was approved by a majority of Congressmen, as ratified certificates issued by the respective Secretaries General of the Permanent Constitutional Commissions and of the plenary of each chamber.
5.4.5.5. However, the Board notes that not met the requirement of notice laid down in Article 160 of the Constitution in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives.
5.4.6. Compliance with the requirement of Article 160 Constitutional announcement, as amended by article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003
The article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003 provides:
"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 purpose of the rule, in the light of constitutional jurisprudence, it is to prevent Congress from being surprised by projects which debate and approval unaware that was to take place [3]. According to the Court, the purpose of the ad is "allow Congressmen know what prior bills or reports of presidential objections will be put to the vote, assuming the full knowledge of them and avoiding therefore to be surprised with unearthly feedback ."[4].
The case law has indicated that it is the duty of legislative bodies to present the ads in a previous session to that in which they plan to vote on the project. The quality of the advert, has insisted the Court imposes to be established with certainty or determinable--determined date that the vote should take place.
To that extent, the pre-announcement "is a requirement set by Congress itself to strengthen the democratic principle, respect for minorities and parliamentary publicity and transparency of the legislative process" [5], all of which favors a " proper formation of the democratic will within the legislative chambers. "[6].
Likewise, the Court has recognized that this requirement contributes to the exercise of political control by the community, for "under the influence of this requirement the possibilities of realization of citizen monitoring bills increase, which produces a beneficial result of widening of the margins of popular control to congressional action. "[7].
According to its rules configuration, constitutional jurisprudence has outlined the following characteristics:
"(i) First, the ad must always be done and its realization is inexcusable for the approval of any project, both commissions and the Plenary of the Senate and House of Representatives. Consequently, the lack of prior notice in any of these instances set a defect in the formation process of the law.
(Ii) Secondly, the announcement should be made by the Chair of the House or committee concerned shall, prior and different from one in which the vote is conducted session. This requirement the Court has explained 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 bill and defined in a future session. "[8].
Consistent with the above, the Court has found constitutionally permissible expressions such as "consider", "discuss", "announcement", among others, used in the context of the legislative session, whenever reasonably infer that allow them done reference to the requirement in the final paragraph of Article 160 of the [9] Charter.
(Iii) Third, the date of the vote must be true, which means that it must be determined or at least clearly determinable. On several occasions the Court has addressed the scope of this requirement, to warn that "the legislative chambers must indicate precisely the meeting at which the discussion and voting on the bill or, failing that will take place date will be possible to accredit the requirement cited when the context of the meeting at which the announcement was made is possible to conclude unequivocally, the date on which the debate and approval of the corresponding initiative be verified. "[10].

Consequently, when the announcement is not expressly defined or determined for a date, annotated requirement shall be deemed fulfilled as long as the "context" of the session at which the announcement was made possible to establish, with absolute clarity, certain date in the debate and vote on a draft (determinable) will take place. This ritual manifest excess leaves to favor the principle of instrumentality, which states that "the procedural forms have no value in itself and should be interpreted purposively serving a substantive purpose." [11].
(Iv) Finally, a project can not be voted on in a different session than that for which it has been previously announced. This requirement, which is directly related to the above, seeks to provide a minimum of certainty Congressmen and political community about the time in which debate and vote on a draft will be fulfilled. "
Now, when for any reason not carried out the debate and vote at the meeting announced, the Court has stated that it is necessary to make a new announcement in the same terms and conditions laid down in Article 160 superior, because only in this way transparency ensures democratic deliberation; It is what the Court has called "chain ad". Regarding the importance and scope of this requirement, in the judgment C-933 of 2006 the Corporation held:
"When voting on a project is postponed indefinitely, so that is not carried out in the session to which was announced, it is the duty of the boards continue the chain ad; that is, to reiterate the announcement of voting in each of the sessions that precede the one in which actually carry out the project approval, since "there is no other constitutional instrument to ensure the effective realization of the intended purpose satisfied by the formality of the notice, which, as already seen, is to prevent Congressmen and the wider community are surprised with unearthly feedback or surreptitious ". If it does not have occurrence, ie, if it is not satisfied with the timing of the notice when, for reasons of legislative practice debate and vote on a draft is postponed indefinitely, it is understood that the vote was held in a separate session that it was announced, failing to fulfill the requirement under Article 160 of the Constitution.
Regard, the Court noted that, despite present the phenomenon of break in the chain of announcements regarding a bill whose vote has been postponed indefinitely, not incurred a vice of unconstitutionality ignorance of Article 160 of the Constitution, when in the immediately preceding that in which the project approval is filled session, "it was specifically announced to be voted on this session". If the latter does not have occurrence, ie, if in addition to breaking the chain ad the project indefinitely postponed a vote is without announcing this fact in the immediately preceding session, is understood to have breached the requirement of "announcement" prior enshrined in Superior "Article 160. (Emphasis added).
In this vein, the Chamber considers that when the announcement was made for some or certain date, it is when should preempt the debate and the vote of the respective project. And when for some reason does not happen on that date it becomes essential to carry out a new ad, otherwise a defect in the legislative process will be set for violation of the final paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution.
5.5. ANNOUNCEMENTS MADE IN THE PROCESS OF LAW 1254 2008
In light of such requirements analysis announcements made in each of the legislative cells in the matter under review will be conducted.
5.5.1. Commission announcement in the Senate: The bill was initially announced at the meeting of October 30, 2007, as stated in the Act No. 7 of this date to be discussed and approved on 31 October 2007. | || However, at the meeting of October 31, 2007, no discussion took place and the project was again announced as follows: "by order of the Chairman of the Second Committee of the Senate of the Republic, announcement discussion and voting bills for the next session (...) Mr. President, Senator Carlos Barriga Emiro Peñaranda (...) appointment for Wednesday November 7 at 10:00 am for projects ".

Indeed, the project was discussed and approved at the meeting of November 7 by the Second Committee of the Senate (Congress Gazette number 669 of December 18, 2007).
This time, comprehensive reading of the Congress Gazette where content is found ads of the First Committee in the Senate, allows us to observe that: (i) there was no break in the chain ad because observed of consecutive records, that this was successively renewed when it was not possible approval of the bill for the date it had been determined and (ii) the project was announced for a certain date and approved on the date previously announced.
5.5.2. Senate Plenary announcement
As stated in the Act No. 26 of December 10, 2009, the project was announced for Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 11:00 am
However, as the discussion of the bill in the session of December 11, 2007 was carried out, just stated in the Act No. 27 of this date, it was again announced as follows: "the Secretariat announced projects will be discussed and adopted at the next session (...) Draft Legislative Act for Second Debate (...) bill 2007 18th Senate. " At the end of the session reads: "Since 9:40 pm, the Chair adjourned the meeting and calls for Wednesday December 12, 2007, at 10:00 am".
The bill was approved on December 12, 2007, as stated in the Act No. 28 of 12 December 2007. (Gazette of 60th Congress of February 26, 2008).
As can then be concluded, the announcement in the Senate Plenary meets the requirements of article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003 because: (i) the announcement was made prior to the deliberation and voting form; (Ii) it was made on a different date on which the project was discussed and approved in plenary, and (iii) the date of the debate and the vote was determined.
5.6. VICE EXISTENCE OF A STEP IN THE SECOND CHAMBER COMMISSION: LACK OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT AND PROJECT VOTE
The bill was announced for the first debate in the joint session of the Second Senate and House Committees of Representatives, as noted in the Act number 01 of May 6, 2008 for the next day, ie on 7 May 2008.
However, as stated in the Act number 02 7 May 2008, at the joint session of the Second Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives published in the Gazette number 632 Congress September 12, 2008, discussion and approval of the bill under study was not carried out and was newly announced: "Notice of bills to be approved in the first debate at the next meeting of the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, to comply with article 8 of Legislative Act No. 1 of 2003 (...) bill number 236 2008 House, 18 2007 Senate (...) "and at the end reads" (...) the President of the Second Committee of the Chamber makes use of the word, (...) let me quote the honorable Members of the Second Committee Chamber for Tuesday May 13, 2008 at 10:00 am ".
Despite this, on May 13, 2008 the bill was not studied and was finally approved on May 14, 2008, as stated in the Act No. 26 of this date, published in the Gazette number 591 of September 3, 2008 Congress, but it had been announced again for that session.
As can then be seen, even though the project had been announced for some and certain date, this is the May 13, 2008, actually was discussed and approved at the meeting on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 not working in the record evidence prior announcement for this last session.
Given the lack of evidence that would realize the legislative process in the Second Committee of the Chamber, by order of 20 February 2009, Judge Rapporteur requested the Secretary-General of the Commission would provide information and certify whether the on May 13, 2008 was held regular meeting. In the certification know that "On Tuesday May 13, 2008, unofficial meeting of the Second Committee of the House, convened by the President of the time, Dr. Augusto Posada Sanchez, in joint session on Wednesday 7 held May 2008. the formal meeting was not announced due to planned for that day official visit of some Parliamentarians of the Republic of Canada "had.

Therefore, this Court noted the existence of a defect in the legislative process. Indeed, the announcement of discussion and vote on the draft was to a certain date and certain -the May 13, 2008- so it was imperative to do so on that date and not a day later-May 14, 2008- as finally it occurred without work in the ad test record for this last session.
In these terms, unable to pass the bill 236th 2008, the day indicated the Presidency of the Second Committee of the House had to announce again and mark a new date. Otherwise, the sequence breaks in the chain of the ads.
Indeed, on May 13 it was not carried out previously announced session, even though the call was for a precise and certain date, and is not aware how Congressmen could know the date of again take out the discussion and voting. Consequently, such a situation could only be overcome with a new call in line with constitutional requirements outlined above. However, as the reconvening was never realized, a vice configured in the legislative procedure for violation of the final paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution.
The same factual situation was recently reviewed by this Court in Auto 171 of 29 April 2009 (Exp. LAT 333) within the "Review of constitutionality of the" Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Commitment in Mercosur, Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998 ", and the Law approving number 1208 of 14 July 2008.". At that time, the project finally was Law 1208 also had been announced in the Second Committee of the House of Representatives on May 13, 2008, but was finally approved on May 14, 2008, following meeting of Canadian Congressmen. The Chamber found that presented a procedural defect because: "If the project could not be discussed at the session for which was initially called 'Well it was not performed before the visit of Parliamentarians Canadians-, the President of the Commission second Chamber had the inexcusable duty to make a new ad and point to turn a new date (determined or determinable clearly). However, as this did not happen, it is clear that the timing of the pre-discussion and voting (string ad) "ad broke.
He said: "The Court has confirmed the existence of a defect in the process of approval of Law 1208 of 2008, consisting of the omission of prior notice required by the final paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution, for the session in which it was discussed and approved the project by the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, however it was announced to be discussed and approved at the session on Tuesday May 13, 2008 and actually was discussed and approved at the meeting on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, without test work in the ad record for this last session. "
Consequently, in the same factual situation it should apply the same legal effect in relation to the processing of the 1254 Act, 2008. Also, the Board will reiterate the position it has adopted in similar cases such as:
in Judgment C-933 of 2006, the Full Court of the Corporation commented on the figure known in constitutional jurisprudence as the chain of advertising with the aim of indicating that it is not possible to conduct the vote on a particular draft agreement the indication made in the previous announcement, it is the duty of the board of the House concerned reiterate that notice in order to inform the later date on which that is to be performed effectively [12].
So, if it occurs a break in the time sequence of the notice, it could produce a procedural defect, which means that the bill has been approved in different from the previously announced date. However, such a finding does not lead forcibly to the declaration of unconstitutionality of the bill, because if it is established that in the immediately preceding session "it was specifically announced to be put to the vote at that meeting" the conclusion will be different, so there will be understood that the vote has taken place according to the requirement of the announcement.

In the Judgment C-930 of 2005, Law 943 of 2005, "through which approves the" Convention recognition and validity of degrees, diplomas and transcripts of partial studies in higher education between the declared unconstitutional government of the Republic of Colombia and the government of the Republic of Bolivia ", signed in the city of La Paz to twenty (20) days of August of the year two thousand and one (2001), due to defects in the procedure related with the vote project in a different session than the advertised [13].
In the Judgment C-533 of 2004 [14] the constitutionality was revised "Draft Law No. 230 of 2003 House, 031 2002 Senate, through which passes the" Treaty on Mutual Legal Cooperation between the government of the Republic of El Salvador and the government of the Republic of Colombia ". The Court stated that to comply with article 8 of Legislative Act 01 of 2003, the Plenary of the House did not specify the exact date when this debate would take place and the debate finally happened three sessions after that it became the notice [15].
In the Judgment C-241 of 2006 the Court declared Law 968 of 2005, "through which the Statute Permanent Migration between Colombia and Ecuador approved" unconstitutional, because there was no clarity about the announcement of the vote project, which led to Congressmen had no certainty of when they were going to conduct the voting.
In the Judgment C-576 of 2006 was declared unconstitutional the Act 994 of 2005, "through which the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants approved" because there was a break in the chain ad for voting of the project.
In Auto 013 2007, the Court found a flaw in the process of Law 1037 of 2006, "by which the 'Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage' is approved, adopted at the General Conference of Unesco 32nd Meeting 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), "because in the Second Committee of the House the announcement was made without indicating a certain date for the vote on the draft [16].
Finally, in 2008, a 126 Auto procedural defect was recorded in the approval of Law 1141 of 2007, "through which the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of approving the People's Republic of China on Cooperation in Animal Quarantine and Health ", signed in Beijing on the 6th day of April 2005 as the announcement for the second debate in the House of Representatives was held by a certain date, but approval was fulfilled in the subsequent session "during the session without some allusion announced the decision to postpone the vote on the bill will do."
As can then be concluded, case law has confirmed the existence of a procedural defect in cases where, despite having been announced for a certain date, the Legislative cell finally proceeds to the approval of a bill different from the previously announced date.
However, the Court observes that the defect identified in the process of approval of Law 1254 of 2008 is repairable, so that the matter be returned to Congress in order that it can be corrected the irregularity. Indeed, from the Judgment C-576 of 2006 [17], the Court stated that, in the context of approval of laws approving international treaties, vice detected in the processing of the process is remediable character, as long as " the Senate has decided so that the House where constitutional mandate has initiated the process of draft laws approving a treaty comprehensively expressed their will. Thus, one of the structural stages of the process, v. g., the approval by the Senate, will be fully completed no vice. "
On the particular issue, the Court stressed:
"In addition, it should be noted that the Court handed down for nearly two years several statements warning about the importance of fulfilling this requirement, which has not prevented the vice repeat, most often precisely in the Senate; ie in the House of origin of the project which is responsible to decide, first, whether to approve or disapproves the Treaty. That decision, henceforth, must be the expression of a will made without procedural defects to be understood that culminated one of the structural stages of processing this kind of law. " (Judgment C-576 of 2006).

So, the fundamental condition for the vice incurred be remedied is that the Senate of the Republic -Camera the constitutional provision that is responsible for the start of the legislative-process has validly expressed their willingness to approve the project for consideration [18]. Therefore, says the Court, 'a shortcoming in the fulfillment of that requirement in a post-vote in the Plenary of the Senate time is considered a fundamentally flawed that will trigger the return of a law approving an international treaty to Congress for remedy vice and continue its process from the moment that occurred when other conditions are met remediableness "[19].
As a result of the foregoing, in the present case is applicable paragraph of Article 241 of the Constitution, which states that "when the Court finds correctable defects in the formation process of the act subject to control order their return to the authority that issued them so that, if possible, amend the defect. He corrected the defect, shall decide on the constitutionality of the act. "
To this end, similar to what was decided in unprecedented opportunities [20] Thus, the Court returned the case to the Second Committee of the House of Representatives as vice-for was detected in the assortment process in said cell legislatively to redo the respective procedure. The Second Committee of the House shall within thirty (30) days from the notification of this Order in the Presidency of the same, to remedy the defect detected in this decision. Once corrected the irregularity, the House of Representatives will have until June 20, 2010 to meet the later stages of the legislative process. Then the President of the Republic shall have the period laid down in the Charter to sanction the bill (maintaining the same numbering of the law approving that is returned) and finely Congress President shall transmit to the Court Act 1254 of 2008 for ultimately decide on its constitutionality.
6. DECISION
In light of the foregoing, the Constitutional Court of Colombia, on behalf of the people and by mandate of the Constitution, Resolves
:
First. By General Secretary of the Corporation, go back to the Presidency of the House of Representatives Law 1254 of November 27, 2008, "through which the approved" Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Government of the Republic of Colombia ", made in the city of Lima on November 23, 2001," in order to remedy the procedural defect identified in this decision.
Second. Treat yourself to the Second Standing Committee Constitutional Chamber of Representatives within thirty (30) days from notice of this Order to the Presidency of the same, to remedy the defect detected in this decision.
Third. Once corrected the defect that the preamble of this decision referred to the House of Representatives have until June 20, 2010, 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 by applicable law, to finally decide on its constitutionality.
Cópiese, report, contact the National Government, inserted in the Gazette of the Constitutional Court and complied.
The President,
Nilson Pinilla Pinilla.
Maria Victoria Street Correa, Mauricio Gonzalez Cuervo (absent Commission), Juan Carlos Henao Pérez, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva,
magistrates.
The General Secretary, Victoria Sáchica
Martha Mendez. * * *

1 Watch Judgments C-468 of 1997; C-376 1998; C-426 and C-2000 924 2000.
2.
3 Cfr. Judgment C-644 2004. Cf.
4. Auto 038 2004 and Judgment C-533
in May 2004. Judgment C-333 in June 2005.
Auto 232 2007 .
7 126 2008 Auto Car
8 232 2007 and 081 2008, among others.
9 Cf. Judgments C-475 2005 1040 C-2005, C-241 2006 2006 C-276, Cars 311 2006 232 2007 081 2008, among others. Auto
10 081 2008. See also the Auto 232 2007, 053 2007, 311 2006, 089 2005 and 927 Judgments C-2007, C-276, 2006, C-649, 2006 and C-576, 2006, among others.
11 Judgment C-737
2001. 12 See Auto 126 2008.

13 Judgment C-930 of 2005: "Considering the above, the Court observes that the said interruption existed in the legislative process under study to the case of the approval of the initiative in the second debate in the Senate. Indeed, in the plenary of 15 June 2004 it was announced the vote on the draft for the next session, that is, on June 16 the same year. Thus, the initiative was included in the agenda of that session, but was not discussed or approved, so that, given the requirement laid down in Article 160 CP, should be continued with the sequence of announcements. However, this obligation was pretermitida to approve the project at the Plenary of June 17, 2004; that is, in a separate session to one in which the vote was announced. Consequently, he made a defect in the legislative procedure, according to the arguments, carries the unconstitutionality of the law approving ". (Emphasis added).
14 Judgment C-533
2004. 15 Judgment C-533 of 2004. The Court found that a procedural error since it did not constitute "To the Court in this case is to be understood that the requirement indicated in the final paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution, to the extent that, given the purpose of the -a standard namely allow Congressmen know beforehand what projects will be put to the vote, but may not sorprendérseles with intempestivas- feedback and given the circumstances were presented at the meeting of August 26, 2003 where it was necessary to adjourn for lack of quorum to decide, the project that culminated in the enactment of Law 840 of 2003 was discussed and approved prior notice in the previous session that would be discussed and voted at the next plenary session to vote on bills, Plenary session are effectively held on Tuesday, September 2, 2003. "he added:" in this regard it is also relevant to recall that Article 80 of the law 5th 1992 states that "When a session is not been exhausted the agenda set for it, the next will continue the same order until its conclusion." And this was precisely what happened at the meeting on August 26 that should rise for lack of quorum to decide on matters of the agenda ".
013 16 Auto 2007: "The Secretary was limited at the end of the meeting of September 27, 2005, to mark the" announcement of projects ", including the number 069 2005 House Project was and 244 2005 Senate, but for the effect it had indicated, nor did the President of the Commission, any date or session for which the vote on the bill was scheduled. So, the inclusion of the aforementioned project in the back mentioned terms does not constitute compliance with the above mandate has been referred to, because this is a preliminary and certain knowledge by the Congress of the date it will take place the vote given project, a circumstance which in this case was not presented ". (Emphasis added).
17 Judgment C-576
2006. 18 Judgment C-649
2006. 19 Judgment C-576
2006. 20 Cf., Constitutional Court, Cars 013 2007 053 2007, 078 2007, 119 2007, 232 2007, 126 2008, among others.


Related Laws