JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)September 23, 1992

T-538 de 1992

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

Reporting justice Simon Rodriguez Rodriguez

✓Claimant Nicolas Murillo

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Intimidad. Correspondencia En Centros Carcelarios. 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.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · 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 (12 points)
  1. en nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitución,
  2. F A L L A :
  3. Primero. Tutélase el derecho a la correspondencia privada que se le ha vulnerado al señor Nicolás Murillo Gutierrez.
  4. Segundo. Para el efecto anterior, se ordena al señor Director de la Penitenciaría Rural de Peñas Blancas de Calarcá, señor Arcesio Liévano o quien desempeñe tal cargo, que en el plazo de cuarenta y ocho (48) horas, haga llegar al doctor Fernando Jordán Calvo la carta que Murillo Gutiérrez, interno de ese Centro, le envió el 9 de abril de 1992.
  5. Tercero. Comuníquese al Juzgado
  6. Tercero. de Instrucción Criminal de Calarcá, para que notifique esta providencia a las partes de conformidad con el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, con entrega de copia de la misma a ellas.
  7. Cuarto. Infórmese al Director General de Prisiones y al Ministerio de Justicia sobre la violación de dicho derecho.
  8. SIMON RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ
  9. Magistrado Ponente
  10. CIRO ANGARITA BARON AIME SANIN GREIFFENSTEIN
  11. Magistrado Magistrado
  12. MARTHA V. SACHICA DE MONCALEANO
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.

Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.