JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)December 7, 1994

T-567 de 1994

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

Reporting justice Carlos Gaviria Díaz

✓Claimant Jesus Antonio Jordan

✓
Topic · hard data
Presuncion De Veracidad. Der. A La Vida. Tutela Transitoria. Construccion De Tanque De Acueducto. Tolima. 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.

5 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 (6 points)
  1. PRIMERO. REVOCAR el fallo proferido por el Juzgado
  2. Cuarto. Civil del Circuito de Ibagué el treinta (30) de junio de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro (1994).
  3. SEGUNDO. TUTELAR el derecho a la vida de JESUS ANTONIO JORDAN ROJAS, como mecanismo transitorio, hasta por cuatro meses, ordenando al Servicio de Salud del Tolima efectuar el estudio técnico requerido para evaluar el riesgo que, para la vida e integridad de las personas allí residentes, representa el tanque del acueducto construído en el barrio Ambalá de Ibagué. En caso de detectarse alguna falla en su estructura, deberá realizar las obras necesarias para subsanarla. El informe sobre el acatamiento de esta providencia deberá ser remitido al juez de instancia, dentro de los quince (15) días siguientes a la notificación del presente fallo.
  4. TERCERO. Compulsar copias a la Procuraduría General de la Nación para lo de su competencia.
  5. CUARTO. Comuníquese al Juzgado
  6. Cuarto. Civil del Circuito de Ibagué, para los efectos del artículo 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.