JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 30, 2000

T-1479 de 2000

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

Reporting justice Fabio Morón Díaz

✓Claimant Hector Emilio Castro Hernandez Vs. Comandante Tercera Brigada Del Ejercito Nacional

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho De Peticion. Las Respuestas Dadas Al Juez De Instancia No Constituyen La Satisfaccion Del Derecho. Concedida.
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 Peticion
  • No constituye respuesta información suministrada al juez de tutela
  • Resolución oportuna y de fondo
Derecho De Petición
  • Núcleo esencial
2 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 (3 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR el fallo proferido por la Sala Penal de la Corte Suprema de Justicia el veintitrés (23) de mayo de dos mil (2000), que negó la acción de tutela interpuesta por el señor Héctor Emilio Castro Hernández.
  2. Segundo. En su lugar, TUTELAR el derecho fundamental de petición del señor Héctor Emilio Castro Hernández. ORDENAR al señor Comandante de la Tercera Brigada del Ejército, con sede en Cali, para que en plazo máximo de cinco (5) días hábiles, contados a partir de la notificación del presente fallo, resuelva sobre la solicitud presentada por el demandante y se le comunique.
  3. Tercero. LÍBRENSE por Secretaría las comunicaciones de que trata el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, para los efectos allí previstos.
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.