Líneas jurisprudenciales trazadas por el consejo de estado en asuntos de privación injusta de la libertad entre 1992-2019
Cargando...
Fecha
2020
Autores
López Castellanos, Tatiana
Jaime Trigos, Jacqueline
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Ediciones Universidad Simón Bolívar
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Resumen
Está investigación está encaminada a conocer los distintos criterios adoptados por el Consejo
de Estado, en materia de privación injusta de la libertad, a partir de la vigencia de la
Constitución Política se ha producido tres líneas jurisprudenciales, las cuales han sido el piso
jurídico sobre la que se ha edificado la responsabilidad del estado por privación injusta de la
libertad, además de esta líneas jurisprudenciales en esta materia se han producido dos
sentencias de unificación jurisprudencial por parte de la sección tercera del Consejo de Estado
y dos sentencias de unificación proferidas por la Corte Constitucional; sobre estas líneas y
sentencias unificadas se desarrolla esta investigación.
Con la entrada en vigencia de la Constitución de 1991, seda aplicación al artículo 90 de nuestra
carta magna, se entrega una herramienta para exigirle al Estado una responsabilidad por el
daño antijurídico, causado por una privación injusta de la libertad. A partir de allí se inicia los
primeros procesos donde se solicita del estado se repare los perjuicios causados
consecuencia de una privación de la libertad, la cual desde la óptica del actor es considerada
injusta.
A fin de conocer los criterios mencionados primeramente abordamos la jurisprudencia del
Consejo de Estado aplicada en cada una de las líneas estudiadas entre los años 1992-2019,
sobre privación injusta de la libertad, dentro del mencionado estudio encontramos que el
consejo de estado ha fluctuado a través de dos regímenes que conocemos como el régimen
subjetivo y objetivo, con los cuales ha resuelto los distintos problemas jurídicos que sobre el
asunto se presentan. Definiéndose el primero de ellos como restrictivo, es decir, el estado
exige probar la existencia de un error jurisdiccional y el régimen objetivo, el cual es más lapso,
pues no exige mayor carga probatoria, solo debe obtenerse una sentencia absolutoria o su
equivalente, para lograr la reparación.
This investigation is aimed at learning about the different criteria adopted by the Council of State, in matters of unjust deprivation of liberty, since the Political Constitution came into force, three jurisprudential lines have been produced, which have been the legal floor on the that the responsibility of the state for unjust deprivation of liberty has been built, in addition to these jurisprudential lines in this matter, there have been two sentences of jurisprudential unification by the third section of the Council of State and two unification sentences issued by the Court Constitutional; on these lines and unified sentences this investigation is developed. With the entry into force of the Constitution of 1991, application of Article 90 of our Magna Carta, a tool is delivered to demand responsibility from the State for unlawful damage caused by an unjust deprivation of liberty. From there, the first processes are initiated where the state is requested to repair the damages caused as a result of a deprivation of liberty, which from the actor's point of view is considered unfair. In order to know the criteria mentioned first, we address the jurisprudence of the Council of State applied in each of the lines studied between the years 1992-2019, on unjust deprivation of liberty, within the aforementioned study we find that the council of state has fluctuated to Through two regimes that we know as the subjective and objective regime, with which he has solved the different legal problems that arise on the matter. Defining the first of them as restrictive, that is, the state requires to prove the existence of a jurisdictional error and the objective regime, which is longer, since it does not require a greater burden of proof, only an acquittal or its equivalent must be obtained, to achieve repair.
This investigation is aimed at learning about the different criteria adopted by the Council of State, in matters of unjust deprivation of liberty, since the Political Constitution came into force, three jurisprudential lines have been produced, which have been the legal floor on the that the responsibility of the state for unjust deprivation of liberty has been built, in addition to these jurisprudential lines in this matter, there have been two sentences of jurisprudential unification by the third section of the Council of State and two unification sentences issued by the Court Constitutional; on these lines and unified sentences this investigation is developed. With the entry into force of the Constitution of 1991, application of Article 90 of our Magna Carta, a tool is delivered to demand responsibility from the State for unlawful damage caused by an unjust deprivation of liberty. From there, the first processes are initiated where the state is requested to repair the damages caused as a result of a deprivation of liberty, which from the actor's point of view is considered unfair. In order to know the criteria mentioned first, we address the jurisprudence of the Council of State applied in each of the lines studied between the years 1992-2019, on unjust deprivation of liberty, within the aforementioned study we find that the council of state has fluctuated to Through two regimes that we know as the subjective and objective regime, with which he has solved the different legal problems that arise on the matter. Defining the first of them as restrictive, that is, the state requires to prove the existence of a jurisdictional error and the objective regime, which is longer, since it does not require a greater burden of proof, only an acquittal or its equivalent must be obtained, to achieve repair.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Privación, Injusta, Libertad, Jurisprudencia, Régimen, Subjetivo, Objetivo, Deprivation, Unfair, Freedom, Jurisprudence, Regime, Subjective, Objective