A- de 2001
The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.
Reporting justice Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa
✓Claimant Jorge Alberto Rojas Otalvaro
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.
- Requisitos de concepto de violación
- Falta absoluta de concepto de violación
- Requisitos mínimos
- Exposición de concepto de violación
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)
Se confirmó el auto que rechazó la demanda presentada contra el parágrafo 3 del Art. 1 y el parágrafo 4 del Art. 2, toda vez que resulta claro que el actor no presentó un concepto de la violación que haga procedente el pronunciamiento de la Corte, o que permitiera al Magistrado Sustanciador, al menos, indicar con precisión los elementos que deberían ser objeto de corrección, por la falta absoluta de formulación del concepto de la violación.
What it decided
Operative part (Resuelve)
✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.
- RESUELVE:
- Primero. CONFIRMAR el auto que rechazó la demanda presentada contra el parágrafo 3 del artículo 1 y el parágrafo 4 del artículo 2 por las razones expuestas.
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.
How it connects
Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.
The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.