JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 31, 2001

A- de 2001

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Luis Eduardo Montealegre Lynett

✓Claimant Arango Mejia Jorge·Respondent Corte Suprema De Justicia Sala Casacion Penal

✓
Topic · hard data
Solicitud Suspension Medidas Privativas De La Libertad
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

Corte Constitucional
  • Carece de competencia para tramitar peticiones con posterioridad al fallo
Medidas Provisionales
  • Solo pueden ser adoptadas durante el trámite del proceso o en la sentencia
3 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se negó la petición de suspender la aplicación de las medidas privativas de la libertad que la Sala Penal de la Corte Suprema de Justicia dictara contra el actor de la referencia, toda vez que las medidas provisionales únicamente pueden ser adoptadas durante el trámite del proceso o en la sentencia.

Lo anterior por cuanto únicamente durante el trámite o al momento de dictar la sentencia, se puede apreciar la urgencia y necesidad de la medida.

Una vez dictada la sentencia, la protección del derecho fundamental consistirá en el cumplimiento del fallo.

Contra esta decisión no procede recurso alguno.

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

  1. Primero. Negar la petición presentada por Jorge Arango Mejía, en representación de Pablo Ardila Sierra.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta decisión no procede recurso alguno.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

Separate opinions — text available1
ConcurrenceAlvaro Tafur Galvis
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.