JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)January 21, 1997

T-003 de 1997

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

Reporting justice Jorge Arango Mejía

✓Claimant Ivan Dario Ocampo Tamayo

✓
Topic · hard data
Der. A La Igualdad. Criterio Del Puesto Ponderado Para Seleccion De Estudiante De Medicina A Postgrado. Autonomia Universitaria. Negada.
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.

Autonomía Universitaria
  • Criterio del puesto ponderado
Derecho A La Intimidad Personal Y Familiar
  • Grabación no permitida de conversaciones
Principio De Igualdad
  • Criterio del puesto ponderado para postgrado
Pruebas
  • Nulidad constitucional
  • Obtención indebida
Tratamiento Diferenciado
  • Excelencia académica
5 topics · 6 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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.

See the operative part (4 points)
  1. Primero. REVÓCASE, por las razones de esta providencia, la sentencia del Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Medellín, Sala de Decisión Penal, de fecha dos (2) de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y seis (1996), que concedió el amparo y confirmó el fallo del Juzgado Vigésimo
  2. Séptimo. (27o.) Penal del Circuito de Medellín, de fecha veinticuatro (24) de junio de mil novecientos noventa y seis (1996), y, en su lugar, DENIÉGASE la tutela de los derechos a la igualdad y la educación del doctor Iván Darío Ocampo Tamayo.
  3. Segundo. COMUNÍQUESE esta providencia a la Sala de Decisión Penal del Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Medellín, para los efectos previstos en el artículo 36 del decreto 2591 de 1991.
  4. Notifíquese, cópiese, cúmplase e
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.

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.