Litigation

Dejusticia intervened before the Court with regards of the constitutional review of the statutory bill of political reform, specifically in the study of Articles 2, 28 and 47.

Dejusticia intervened to support the protection of the fundamental rights of a woman who was denied the right to terminate her pregnancy, although her situation fit into one of the three circumstances in which abortion is permitted, namely, the risk to the women’s mental health.

projects (Mandé Norte) in indigenous and Afro-Colombian collective territories until affected communities were consulted.

Colombia Diversa and Dejusticia presented this lawsuit with to challenge the restriction of civil marriage to heterosexual couples. We argue that this restriction violates the rights to equality, to the recognition of legal personality, to privacy and good name, and to the free development of personality of homosexual couples.

Dejusticia intervened in a tutela in which the plaintiff sought the lifting of protective measures that affected his property in order to freely dispose of it.

Dejusticia challenged the appointment of judges of the National Electoral Council by Congress. The challenge presents a unique argument according to which the election is invalid because it was done by secret ballot and not through public voting as provided by the Constitution.

Dejusticia challenges the constitutionality of Article 40 of Law No. 5 of 1992 (Congress Regulation) which provides that the General Committee of Congress commissions will be chosen by majority rule.

The intervention relates to a motion for legal protection in which a victim of a serious violation of his human rights, in spite of being in an unusual and extreme security risk, received no protection from existing security programs. Dejusticia requests the Constitutional Court to take the necessary steps in order to crease the violation of the plaintiff’s fundamental rights and to consider that this case is one of many that exist today in the country, where victims and witnesses of the conflict did not receive effective, adequate, and specific protection, and, therefore, declare that there is an unconstitutional state of affairs. If this were the case, the Court should issue the necessary orders for the different institutions that are responsible of protection programs to appropriate them to the minimum of rationality imposed by the Court and to adapt them to the conditions of the Colombian context.

The Governor of the indigenous community of San Lorenzo filed a tutela against the government of Riosucio in order to stop it from promoting the formation of community action groups within the reservation. We argue that the promotion of these groups, undertaken without the consent of the authorities in the cabildo, is a violation of autonomy and the right to ethnic and cultural diversity of the Embera community of San Lorenzo who decided, through its legitimate authority, to not constitute the formation of such groups within the reservation.