JurídicoESEN
Constitutional review ruling (C)May 31, 2006Full bench

C-426 de 2006

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

Reporting justice Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto

✓Claimant Patricia Bustos

✓
Topic · hard data
Cosa Juzgada En Ley De Justicia Y Paz. No Exigencia De Reserva De Ley Estatutaria
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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Ley 975 de 2005 articulo 71.

Se dictan disposiciones para la reincorporacion de miembros de grupos armados organizados al margen de la ley que contribuyan de manera efectiva a la consecucion de la paz nacional y se dictan otras disposiciones para acuerdos humanitarios.

Sedicion.

A juicio de la actora el estatuto normativo acusado infringe el preambulo y los articulos 5 35 inciso 1 150 numeral 7 179 207 232 249 inciso 2 266 y 267 incisio 8 de la constitucion politica al igual que intrumentos internacionales que hacen parte del bloque de constitucionalidad.

Cosa juzgada respecto del articulo 71 de la ley 975 de 2005.

Estese a lo resuelto en c-370 de 2006

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

What it decided

Holdings on Ley 975/05. Hard data, verified against the operative part — citable.

Art. 71Ley 975/05ESTARSE A LO RESUELTO
1 holding · source: operative part of the ruling
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

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

  1. en nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitución,
  2. RESUELVE
  3. ESTARSE A LO RESUELTO en la sentencia C-370 de 2006, mediante la cual se declaró inexequible el artículo 71 de la Ley 975 de 2005, por vicios de procedimiento en su formación.
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
ConcurrenceJaime Araujo Rentería
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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

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