Mauricio Albarracín Caballero, Jaime Ardila Salcedo, Daniel Gómez-Mazo, Alejandro Lanz Sánchez, Olga Patricia Velásques Ocampo, Juan Felipe Rivera Osorio y María Paula Hoyos Sánchez, executive director and members of Colombia Diversa, are also authors of this intervention.

Dejusticia and Flip ask the Court to examine the contradictions and disharmony between the Statutory Law of Transparency and Access and the public information already in effect as well as the bill on the right to petition that finds itself under constitutional review.

The Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for the Study of Law, Justice and Society (DEJUSTICIA), the Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA), The Yudjá Mïratu da Volta Grande do Xingu Indigenous Association (AYMÏX) and the Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI) presented before the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil written memo that shows the illegality of the Congressional permit for the Belo Monte dam.

Dejusticia intervened before the State Council to support the legality of the Superintendent of Health’s Letter 03 from 2013 on voluntary interruption of pregnancy.

Dejusticia argued before the Constitutional Court that journalist Luis Agustín González should not be criminally liable for his statements about politician Leonor Serrano.

Dejusticia appeared before the Constitutional Court to request that it dismiss the lawsuit brought against Article 66 and 67 of the Constitution, which form part of what is called the “Legal Framework for Peace.”

The Constitutional Court invited us opine on the tension between freedom of expression and artistic creation, and the right to privacy and the reputation, in the context of artwork that addresses racial discrimination.

This document was presented along with the complaint labor union No. 1 of Mapuche Bread-makers of Santiago (Chile) presented to the Committee of Experts of the ILO alleging that Chile violated the Mapuche’s right to prior consultation protected by Convention 169.

Dejusticia appeared before the Constitutional Court regarding a constitutional challenge (tutela) by a student who had been granted a loan for students with disabilities, but was then denied loan forgiveness.