JurídicoESEN
Constitutional review ruling (C)December 5, 1996Full bench

C-683 de 1996

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

Reporting justice Fabio Morón Díaz

✓Claimant Jaime Enrique Lozano

✓
Topic · hard data
Dec. Legisl. 1199/87. Dec. 2790/90. Art. 1. Dec. 2110/92. Art. 89. Recompensas Por Informes Para Hacer Efectivo Ordenes De Captura. Exeq. Inhibitoria Art. 89.
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.

Procesado
  • Garantías constitucionales
Recompensas Por El Estado
  • Protección de derechos
  • Vulneración de derechos
4 topics · 5 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
02

What it decided

Holdings on Decreto 1199/87. Hard data, verified against the operative part — citable.

Art. 1Decreto 1199/87UPHELD
Art. 2Decreto 2790/90UPHELD
Art. 3Decreto 2790/90UPHELD
Art. 64Decreto 2790/90 «inciso 1,2,3»UPHELD
Art. 1Decreto 2271/91UPHELD
Art. 1Decreto 99/91UPHELD
Art. 4Decreto 2271/91UPHELD
Art. 89Decreto 2110/92DECLINED TO RULE
8 holdings · 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.

See the operative part (4 points)
  1. Primero. Declarar EXEQUIBLES el artículo 1º del Decreto 1199 de 1987 incorporado como legislación permanente por el artículo 1º del Decreto 2271, así como los incisos primero,
  2. segundo. y
  3. tercero. del artículo 64 del Decreto 2790 de 1990 modificado por el artículo 1º del Decreto 099 de 1991 incorporado como legislación por el Decreto 2271 de 1991, artículo 4º y en la forma como aparecen transcritos en el apartado II de esta sentencia y bajo las consideraciones en ella contenidas.
  4. Segundo. Declararse INHIBIDA en relación con el artículo 89 del Decreto 2110 de 1992.
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 available2
ConcurrenceAlejandro Martínez CaballeroConcurrenceCarlos Gaviria Díaz
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.