JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)February 12, 2003

T-107 de 2003

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

Reporting justice Jaime Araujo Rentería

✓Claimant Eder Wilson Vargas Medina Vs. Fiscalia 187 Delegada Penal Medellin Y Otros

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho Al Debido Proceso. Mecanismos Ordinarios De Defensa En Proceso Penal. Inactividad De Abogado. Falta De Notificacion. Principio De Subsidiariedad. Naturaleza Juridica De La Tutela. Justicia Penal Militar. 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.

Derecho De Defensa
  • No vulneración por inactividad del abogado
Debido Proceso Penal Y Derecho De Defensa
  • Notificación con base en datos o direcciones erradas
Proceso Penal
  • No se utilizaron medios ordinarios de defensa
3 topics · 3 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 (2 points)
  1. Primero. CONFIRMAR los fallos proferidos por la Sala Penal de la Corte Suprema de Justicia el 25 de junio de 2002 y por la Sala de Casacion Civil de la misma Corporacion el 12 de agosto de 2002 en el tramite de la accion de tutela instaurada por Eder Wilson Vargas Medina contra la Fiscalia 187 Delegada ante los Jueces Penales del Circuito de Medellin, el Juzgado 12 Penal del Circuito y la Sala Penal del Tribunal Superior de la misma Ciudad, por las razones expuestas en esta providencia.
  2. Segundo. LIBRESE por Secretaria la comunicacion de que trata el articulo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, para los efectos alli contemplados.
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.