Colombia

Solapas principales

Caselaw

The plaintiffs filed a constitutional claim arguing that Law 115 of 1994 did not comply with international human rights standards by allowing for the option to charge fees on primary education (sect. 183). The Court found the law unenforceable, considering that fees may not be applied to official primary education, but only to secondary and higher education levels.

En septiembre de 2006, siete hombres encapuchados y armados secuestraron a la pareja de Rosmira Serrano Quintero y mataron a su padre, y posteriormente la amenazaron con matar también a ella y a sus hijas si no abandonaba la localidad de El Limoncito, donde vivía. La Sra. Serrano huyó y, en noviembre de 2006, solicitó inscribirse junto con sus hijas como personas desplazadas. La solicitud fue denegada por la Agencia Presidencial para la Acción Social y la Cooperación Internacional (Acción Social) y la Sra.

In September 2006, seven hooded and armed men kidnapped Rosmira Serrano Quintero's partner and killed her father, then told her to leave El Limoncito, where she lived, or else she and her daughters would also be killed, so she fled. In November 2006, she requested registration of herself and her daughters as displaced persons. Her application was denied by the Presidential Agency for Social Action and International Cooperation (Social Action). Ms.

Una de las funciones de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia es revisar las acciones de tutela. La Corte revisa todos los años una pequeña porción de las más de trescientas mil acciones de tutela resueltas por los tribunales inferiores; el 36% de dichas acciones se relacionan con el derecho a la salud, según datos proporcionados para 2005 por la Oficina de la Defensoría del Pueblo de Colombia. La sentencia T-760 de 2008 acumuló 22 acciones de tutela.

The Colombian Constitutional Court has among its functions the review of tutela actions. The Court annually reviews a small proportion of the more than 300,000 tutela actions resolved by lower judges; 36% of which are related to the right to health according to data of the Colombian Ombudsman's Office for 2005. Decision T-760 of 2008 accumulated 22 of these cases. However, the Court did not limit itself to reviewing and resolving these individual cases.

The claimants filed a tutela action against several state institutions alleging failure to comply with their mission of protecting displaced persons and to effectively respond to the displaced’s requests related to housing, access to production projects, health care, education and humanitarian aid.

The Ministry of Labor declared a strike by a group of workers at Las Empresas Varias de Medellín (EVM) to be illegal alleging the right to strike was prohibited in public services. As a consequence, 209 workers were laid off. After their claims were internally rejected, the laid-off workers filed a complaint with the International Labor Organization's (ILO) Administrative Board (AB) requesting protection for their right to work and to unionize.

The Ombudsman filed a protection action against the Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sociedad Occidental de Colombia Inc. on behalf of the U'wa People, seeking revocation of an oil development license granted to the said company affecting traditional indigenous land (see in this database “Defensor del Pueblo, doctor Jaime Córdoba Triviño (on behalf of several members of U'WA Indigenous Group) vs. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente y Occidental de Colombia, Inc. s. Acción de tutela”). The Colombian court ordered a consultation should take place within 30 days.

The Ombudsman filed an amparo action against the Ministry of Environment and Sociedad Occidental de Colombia Inc. on behalf of the U'wa people. The presentation sought the revocation of a license granted to the said company to develop an oil project in indigenous lands, alleging the communities potentially affected by the decision had not been duly consulted before the license had been granted.

El Ministerio de Trabajo declaró ilegal la huelga de un grupo de trabajadores de Las Empresas Varias de Medellín (EVM) en base a que el ejercicio de ese derecho se hallaba prohibido en los servicios públicos. Como consecuencia, 209 trabajadores fueron despedidos. Luego del rechazo de sus reclamos en el ámbito interno, los trabajadores despedidos interpusieron una queja ante el Consejo de Administración (CA) de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) solicitando el amparo de su derecho al trabajo y a la libertad sindical.