Dejusticia, Sisma Mujer and the Red Nacional de Mujeres challenged the appointment of the Superintendent of Health for violation to the quota law.

Challenge to the appointment of the director of Administrative Department of Science, Technology and Innovation (Colciencias) for violation of the Quotas Law.

The “More Information, More Rights Alliance,” in which Dejusticia participates, intervened before the Constitutional Court regarding proposed legislation on transparency and access to public information.

Dejusticia presented an amicus before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding Costa Rica’s prohibition of in vitro fertilization.

Dejusticia, with the Misión de Observación Electoral (MOE), presented a request to nullify the election of Gregorio Eljach Pacheco as Secretary General of the Senate. The request argues that voting should have been public, and that Eljach did not obtain the number of votes required by the Constitution.

Dejusticia intervened before the Constitutional Court supporting tutela filed by Monica Roa and other women against officials of the Inspector General’s Office for violating their right to information and consequently their sexual and reproductive rights, among others

Dejusticia, Sisma Mujer y la Red Nacional de Mujeres challenged the appointment of the Ministers of Housing, Interior and Transportation, because in nominating men for these positions, President Santos led to a violation of Ley 581 of 2000 (Quotas Law) which requires that at least 30 percent of Ministries are led by women.

Dejusticia challenged Legislative Act No. 01 of 2011, which establishes that there is no conflict of interests when members of Congress process legislative acts. We argue that by issuing this reform, the Congress altered an essential element of the democratic principle that establishes that Congress must always act in pursuit of general interests and not private interests.

DeJusticia addressed the Constitutional Court in regards with a law suit established against the Victims Act. We support three charges of the lawsuit: the first one, to include in various articles of the Act the grounds of “forced abandonment”; the second one, to declare unconstitutional the penalty to victims who, through non-legal recourse’s, occupy the lands awaiting to be restored; and the third one, to declare unconstitutional the presumption the law brings for the opposing party.

In another charge we differ from the applicants regarding the Abandoned and Forcefully Stripped Land Registry, because we believe that it does need to be a procedural requirement for the restitution action.