JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)March 4, 2004

T-183 de 2004

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

Reporting justice Alfredo Beltrán Sierra

✓Claimant Jhon Alejandro Escobar Gaviria Vs. Juzgado Penal Municipal De Andes Antioquia

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho Al Debido Proceso Y Defensa De Condenado. Via De Hecho. Rehacer Proceso Penal. Hurto Calificado Agravado. Nombramiento Nuevo Defensor De Oficio Por Negligencia Y Descuido Del Anterior. 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.

Recurso De Apelacion En Proceso Penal
  • Sustentación por escrito no la hizo el defensor de oficio
2 topics · 2 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. REVOCASE el fallo proferido por el Tribunal Superior de Antioquia, dentro de la accion de tutela instaurada por Jhon Alejandro Escobar Gaviria en contra del Juzgado
  2. Primero. (1) Penal del Circuito de Andes - Antioquia. En su lugar, CONCEDASE la proteccion de los derechos invocados.
  3. Segundo. ORDENASE a la funcionaria judicial demandada que en el termino de cuarenta y ocho (48) horas contadas a partir de la notificacion de esta providencia, rehaga el proceso penal a partir de la notificacion de la sentencia condenatoria, nombre al actor un nuevo defensor de oficio, que este en contacto con su defendido, de tal manera que pueda materializar su deseo de apelar la sentencia proferida en su contra.
  4. Por Secretaria General, librense las comunicaciones de que trata el articulo 36 del decreto 2591 de 1991.
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.