JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)April 15, 1997

T-194 de 1997

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

Reporting justice Carlos Gaviria Díaz

✓Claimant Jaime Ivan Echandia Botero

✓
Topic · hard data
Tutela Contra Providencias Judiciales. Der. A La Libertad. Inexistencia De Via De Hecho. 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.

Acción De Tutela Contra Providencias Judiciales
  • Improcedencia general
  • Procedencia excepcional
Fiscal
  • Práctica de pruebas
  • Límites a discrecionalidad en medidas de aseguramiento
Sindicado
  • Variación de cargos
Via De Hecho
  • Examen comportamiento procesal del funcionario judicial
Debido Proceso
  • Examen comportamiento procesal del funcionario judicial
Juez De Tutela
  • Información suficiente para decidir
Principio De La Doble Instancia
  • Desacuerdos judiciales sobre clasificación de providencias
7 topics · 9 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 (7 points)
  1. en nombre del Pueblo y por mandato de la Constitución,
  2. RESULEVE:
  3. Primero. CONFIRMAR, pero por las razones aquí anotadas, la providencia proferida por el Juzgado
  4. Segundo. Promiscuo Municipal de Saravena (Arauca), el 1 de octubre de 1996, según la cual se declaró improcedente la presente acción de tutela.
  5. Segundo. COMUNICAR esta sentencia al Juzgado
  6. Segundo. Promiscuo Municipal de Saravena (Arauca), para los fines previstos en el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
  7. Comuníquese, notifíquese, 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.