Dejusticia supported claim of unconstitutionality, arguing that the term “due to the armed conflict” of the Victim’s Law be understood in its broadest sense.

Dejusticia and the Foundation for Press Freedom -FLIP- argues for the application of standards that should be applied to protect rights frequently violated by intelligence activities and, at the same time, ensure their effectiveness.

Dejusticia supported the claim of unconstitutionality of Articles 60 and 61 of the National Development Plan because they contain measures that promote land concentration and constitute a step backward in guaranteeing the right of agricultural workers to access land.

Dejusticia addressed the Constitutional Court in a motion for the legal protection of fundamental rights which examined whether a Clinical Laboratory had discriminated against a gay man by rejecting him as a blood donor

The intervention refers to three aspects of the victims law. The first one challenges establishing is January 1, 1985 as the date from which victims would be recognized for purposes of reparations. The second is the exclusion of victims of common crimes. Finally, we argue that the exclusion of victims from illegal armed groups is unconstitutional.

Dejusticia and Colombia Diversa challenged the decision of ICBF authorities to remove two adopted children from the custody of Mr. Burr after the authorities learned he was gay.

Dejusticia intervened before the Constitutional Court arguing that challenged law, part of the Law of Employment Formalization, should be interpreted to mean that any employees responsible for programmatic and permanent activities in private and public entities must hired via employment contract.

Dejusticia intervened to challenge a legislative constitutional reform prohibiting the possession and consumption of drugs, which sought to replace jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court that interpreted the right to personal autonomy as permitting the possession of a personal dose of drugs.

Dejusticia and Racial Discrimination Watch intervened before the Constitutional Court in a tutela proceeding filed by a student of the University Distrital Francisco José de Caldas who alleged he was the victim of racial discrimination because of racist remarks of a teacher during class.