Responsabilidad patrimonial del estado por privación injusta de la libertad: caso de personas detenidas por supuestos nexos con grupos armados
Cargando...
Fecha
2020
Autores
Silva Pérez, Eliana Carolina
Tuiran Ruiz, Jesús David
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
En los albores de la teoría de responsabilidad estatal durante la segunda mitad del
siglo XIX se planteaba un estadio de Irresponsabilidad total del Estado respecto a
los actos que resultan productores de daños, las administraciones públicas no
reconocían fundados en su soberanía, y los funcionarios respondían directa y
personalmente por sus actuaciones. En el escenario del Estado de Derecho
soportado en el principio de legalidad y la responsabilidad patrimonial del Estado,
de modo que cuando el Estado en ejercicio de sus poderes de intervención causa
un daño antijurídico o una lesión debe repararlo, de acuerdo con el artículo 90 de la
Constitución Política de 1991, por acciones u omisiones de las autoridades públicas.
En ese orden de ideas el demandante debe demostrar un daño antijurídico o lesión,
como menoscabo o perjuicio patrimonial sufrido, la acción y omisión estatal
injustificada y más aún la relación de causalidad, entre ambos, para que se le pueda
indemnizar, criterio aplicable en el caso de la privación injusta de la libertad a una
persona, que se puede configurar probando el defectuoso funcionamiento de la
administración de justicia y el error judicial , pues se le prohíbe al Estado la
arbitrariedad, el abuso, el exceso, el ejercicio desproporcionado, las omisiones, y la
inactividad que origina daños antijurídicos por los agentes estatales de cualquier
poder público.
En decisión del Consejo de Estado de 15 de agosto de 2018, se sostuvo que no
basta demostrar que no hubo condena en el proceso penal, sino que además se
debe determinar si el daño padecido con la privación de la libertad resulta o no
antijurídico, porque ni la Constitución ni la ley han fijado un título jurídico de
imputación, además la jurisdicción administrativa ha creado títulos para la solución
de los casos propuestos y el juez debe emplear el principio iura novit curia más la
situación fáctica particular para escoger y decidir con base en el título de imputación
más conveniente.
At the dawn of the theory of state responsibility during the second half of the nineteenth century, a stage of total State Irresponsibility regarding damageproducing acts was raised, public administrations did not respond based on their sovereignty, and officials responded directly and personally for his performances. In the scenario of the rule of law supported by the principle of legality and the patrimonial responsibility of the State, so when the State in the exercise of its powers of intervention causes unlawful damage or injury, it must repair it, in accordance with article 90 of the Constitution 1991 policy, for actions or omissions of public authorities, In that order of ideas the plaintiff must demonstrate an unlawful damage or injury, such as impairment or property damage suffered, the unjustified state action and omission and the causal relationship, between both, so that he can be compensated, applicable criterion for unjustly depriving of the freedom to a person, which can be configured by proving the malfunction of the administration of justice and judicial error, since the State is prohibited from arbitrariness, abuse, excess, disproportionate exercise, omissions, and inactivity that originates unlawful damages by state agents of any public power. In a decision of the State Council of August 15, 2018, it was argued that it is not enough to prove that there was no conviction in the criminal process, but to determine whether or not the damage suffered with the deprivation of liberty is unlawful, because neither the Constitution nor the law has established a legal title of imputation and that the administrative jurisdiction has created titles for the solution of the proposed cases and the judge must use the principle iura novit curia and the particular factual situation to choose and decide based on the title of imputation more convenient.
At the dawn of the theory of state responsibility during the second half of the nineteenth century, a stage of total State Irresponsibility regarding damageproducing acts was raised, public administrations did not respond based on their sovereignty, and officials responded directly and personally for his performances. In the scenario of the rule of law supported by the principle of legality and the patrimonial responsibility of the State, so when the State in the exercise of its powers of intervention causes unlawful damage or injury, it must repair it, in accordance with article 90 of the Constitution 1991 policy, for actions or omissions of public authorities, In that order of ideas the plaintiff must demonstrate an unlawful damage or injury, such as impairment or property damage suffered, the unjustified state action and omission and the causal relationship, between both, so that he can be compensated, applicable criterion for unjustly depriving of the freedom to a person, which can be configured by proving the malfunction of the administration of justice and judicial error, since the State is prohibited from arbitrariness, abuse, excess, disproportionate exercise, omissions, and inactivity that originates unlawful damages by state agents of any public power. In a decision of the State Council of August 15, 2018, it was argued that it is not enough to prove that there was no conviction in the criminal process, but to determine whether or not the damage suffered with the deprivation of liberty is unlawful, because neither the Constitution nor the law has established a legal title of imputation and that the administrative jurisdiction has created titles for the solution of the proposed cases and the judge must use the principle iura novit curia and the particular factual situation to choose and decide based on the title of imputation more convenient.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Responsabilidad patrimonial, Privación injusta, Libertad, Títulos de imputación, Consejo de estado, Patrimonial responsibility, Unjust deprivation, Liberty, Imputation titles, State council
