CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

"by means of which the Ushuaia Protocol on democratic engagement is approved in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998."

THE CONGRESS OF COLOMBIA

DECRETA:

Article 1o. I approved theUshuaia Protocol on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998. "

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the " Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24 of 1998 ", which by article 1or of this law is approved, will force the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

Article 3o. This law governs from the date of its publication.

The President of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

Nancy Patricia Gutierrez Castaneda.

The Secretary General of the honorable Senate of the Republic,

Emilio Ramon Otero Dajud.

The President of the honorable House of Representatives,

Oscar Arboleda Palacio.

The Secretary General (e) of the honourable House of Representatives,

Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez Camargo. "

"ushuaia protocol on democratic engagement in Mercosur, the republic of Bolivia and the republic of Chile

The Republic of Argentina, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay, the States Parties to Mercosur, and the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, hereinafter referred to as States Parties to the Protocol,

REAFFIRMING the principles and objectives of the Treaty of Asuncion and its Protocols, and the integration agreements concluded between Mercosur and the Republic of Bolivia and between Mercosur and the Republic of Chile,

REITERATING what was expressed in the Presidential Declaration of the Lenas on June 27, 1992, in the sense that the full validity of democratic institutions is an indispensable condition for the existence and development of Mercosur,

RATIFYING the Presidential Declaration on Democratic Commitment in Mercosur and the Protocol of Accession to that Declaration by the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile,

AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:

Article 1o. The full validity of democratic institutions is an essential condition for the development of integration processes between the States Parties to this Protocol.

Article 2o. This Protocol shall apply to relations resulting from the respective integration agreements in force between the States Parties to this Protocol, in the event of a breach of the democratic order in one of them.

Article 3o. Any breach of the democratic order in one of the States Parties to this Protocol shall result in the application of the procedures provided for in the following Articles.

Article 4o. In the event of a breach of the democratic order in a State Party to this Protocol, the other States Parties shall promote the relevant consultations with each other and with the State concerned.

Article 5o. Where the consultations referred to in the previous Article are unsuccessful, the other States Parties to this Protocol, in the specific field of the integration agreements in force between them, shall consider the nature and extent of the measures to be applied, taking into account the severity of the situation.

These measures will cover from the suspension of the right to participate in the different bodies of the respective integration processes, until the suspension of the rights and emerging obligations of these processes.

Article 6o. The measures provided for in Article 5 or above shall be adopted by consensus by the States Parties to this Protocol, as appropriate in accordance with the integration agreements in force between them, and communicated to the State concerned, the which shall not participate in the relevant decision-making process. Those measures shall enter into force on the date on which the respective communication is made.

Article 7o. The measures referred to in Article 5 or applied to the State Party concerned shall cease from the date of the communication to that State of the agreement of the States which adopted such measures, that the full restoration of the democratic order, which should take place as soon as that restoration becomes effective.

Article 8o. This Protocol is an integral part of the Treaty of Asunción and the respective integration agreements concluded between Mercosur and the Republic of Bolivia and Mercosur and the Republic of Chile.

Article 9o. This Protocol shall apply to the integration agreements which will be concluded in the future between Mercosur and Bolivia, Mercosur and Chile and between the six States Parties to this Protocol, which must be expressed in the said Protocol. instruments.

Article 10. This Protocol shall enter into force for the States Parties to Mercosur within 30 days from the date of the deposit of the fourth instrument of ratification with the Government of the Republic of Paraguay.

This Protocol shall enter into force for the States Parties to Mercosur and the Republic of Bolivia or the Republic of Chile, as the case may be, thirty days after the General Secretariat of the ALADI has informed the five Signatory Parties. (a) the internal procedures for incorporation into the respective national legal systems have been completed in those Parties.

FACT in the city of Ushuaia, Argentina, at the twenty-four days of July of the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight, in three originals, in Spanish and Portuguese languages, all texts being equally authentic.

By the Republic of Argentina,

Carlos Saul Menem, Guido Di Tella.

By the Federative Republic of Brazil,

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Luis Felipe Lampreia.

For the Republic of Paraguay,

Juan Carlos Wasmosy, Ruben Melgarejo Lanzoni.

For the Eastern Republic of Uruguay,

Julio Maria Sanguinetti, Didier Opertti Badan.

By the Republic of Bolivia,

Hugo Banzer, Javier Murillo de la Rocha.

By the Republic of Chile,

Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, José Miguel Insulza ".

" EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF PUBLIC POWER

PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC

Bogotá D. C., July 26, 2007

Authorized. Submit to the consideration of the honorable Congress of the Republic for the Constitutional effects.

(Fdo.) ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Foreign Minister,

(Fdo.) Fernando Araujo Perdomo.

DECRETA:

Article 1o. Approve the "Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile", made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998.

Article 2o. In accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of Law 7ª of 1944, the "Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile", made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on 24 July. July 1998, which under article 1or this law is approved, will force the country from the date on which the international link with respect to it is perfected.

Article 3o. This law governs from the date of its publication.

Dada en Bogotá D. C., a los ...

Presented to the honorable Congress of the Republic by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Foreign Minister,

Fernando Araujo Perdomo.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Communicate and comply.

Execute, upon revision of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to article 241-10 of the Political Constitution.

Dada en Bogotá D. C., a 14 de july de 2008.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, in charge of the Office of the Foreign Minister,

Camilo Reyes Rodriguez ".

III. INTERVENTIONS

1. Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Foreign Ministry asks the Court to declare the constitutionality of the "Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile," made in Ushuaia, Argentina, 24 July 1998 ".

It begins by recalling that on March 26, 1991 the Common Market of the South was created, an institutional project in which the Republics of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay were committed, with the subsequent association of other countries, whose base It was essential to speed up its development processes and to expand the size of the national markets through integration between States. Its objective, he adds, was to allow the free movement of goods, services and productive factors, the establishment of a common external tariff, the adoption of a common commercial policy, coordination of macroeconomic policies and harmonization. of legislation in the respective areas.

Review later some of the processes to consolidate the integration of the one that considers the most important political agreement in the region, as an element of stability that strengthens its economic and political ties. It explains how in this context, at the meeting of the Council of the Common Market of July 1998, the States Parties and the Republics of Bolivia and Chile signed the "Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Engagement", an instrument which reflects the validity of democratic institutions as an indispensable condition for the existence and development of regional integration processes.

Regarding the participation of Colombia in Mercosur, the Foreign Ministry stated that, by note of 13 December 2004, the Foreign Ministry expressed the interest of linking itself as an Associate State, recognizing the duty to adhere to " Protocol of Ushuaia on democratic commitment in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile. " Comments that the Council of the Common Market, in Decision 44 of 16 December 2004, conferred on Colombia the status of an Associate State, granting it the right to participate as a guest at the meetings of the institutional structure to address topics of common interest.

On the other hand, the Ministry refers to the process of the Ushuaia Protocol and the bill of approval. In this sense, the President of the Republic signed the Protocol on 26 July 2007, as provided for in Article 189-2 of the Constitution, which was then submitted to consideration of the Congress of the Republic and approved by it by Law 1208 of July 14, 2008, sanctioned by the President and published in the Official Journal 47,050 of the the same date and finally referred to the Constitutional Court for the review of rigour.

The Ministry then describes the structure of the Convention, which is broadly divided into three sections: preamble, implementation and final provisions. It is necessary to defend the constitutionality of the Protocol and its approval law, a last requirement required for the full incorporation of Colombia as an associate member of Mercosur. In this sense, he recalls that the validity of democracy was considered an indispensable condition for stability, peace and development within the member countries of the Andean Community, as ratified by the Andean Council of Foreign Ministers in the Cartagena Agreement (Decision 458).

Maintains that the celebration and adoption of this Protocol by Colombia respects the national sovereignty and self-determination of the State, while harmonizing with the constitutional principles enshrined in the articles 226 and 227 of the Policy Charter, which promote the integration of political, economic and social relationships on equity bases, reciprocity and national coexistence. In addition-the intervention continues-the maintenance of democratic structures is a principle reiterated in various regional and sub-regional integration scenarios, indispensable to ensure justice, integrity and development of the institutions that support them. Finally, it concludes, the ratification of this international instrument consolidates the democratic institutions in the framework of the policy of defense and democratic security implemented by the National Government.

2. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism

The Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism adheres to the arguments put forward by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in defense of the constitutionality of the Protocol under review and its approval law. Accordingly, it asks the Court to declare the exequability of Law 1208 of 2008 and of the Agreement that is approved by it.

3. Ministry of the Interior and Justice

The Ministry of the Interior and Justice requests the Court to rule in favor of the exequability of Law 1208 of 2008, " Through which the Protocol of Ushuaia is approved on democratic commitment in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on 24 July 1998 ".

After a brief recount of the bill's procedure in the Congress of the Republic, the Ministry considers that the requirements provided for in the Constitution for the approval of this class of laws were met, in particular the following: respect to the initiative reservation (project presented by the National Government through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs); publication of the project before receiving a course in the respective committee (Gazette of the Congress) 469 of 24 September 2007); approval in the first debate in the committee of each House and in the second debate in the respective plenary sessions; compliance with the quorum and majorities in each instance; observance of deadlines; announcement prior to the vote and sanction of the Government.

The intervener refers to the explanatory statement presented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to justify the approval of the bill in the Congress of the Republic.

As to the material content of the Agreement, it maintains that the measures contained therein are consistent with the principles and values of the Constitution, which recognize respect for legal and democratic institutions. It refers specifically to Article 9or Superior, according to which the foreign relations of the State are based on respect for the self-determination of peoples, recognition of the principles of International law accepted by Colombia. It also indicates that the Agreement is consistent with the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, as soon as it promotes economic, social and political integration with the countries of the Americas. Latin and the Caribbean.

4. Colombian Academy of Jurisprudence

Citizen José Joaquín Caicedo Perdomo, acting on behalf of the Colombian Academy of Jurisprudence, considers that Law 1208 of 2008, from the formal point of view, and the Protocol on it adopted, From the material point of view, they are constitutionally unobjectionable.

He warns that in the process of integration between States, the full validity of the democratic institutions has been imposed as an essential condition, for which it presents a brief review of the agreements of this kind that have been concluded in Mercosur. as well as the efforts made by Colombia to join as an Associate State, where an essential condition is adherence to the Ushuaia Protocol on democratic commitment.

The intervener explains that the Ushuaia Protocol is an international treaty, as follows from articles 8o, 9o and 10 of it, so that it is necessary to evaluate its compatibility with the Constitution. It considers that the measures provided are consistent with the principles and values of the Political Charter, which recognise respect for legal and democratic institutions (preamble and Article 1). In addition, he recalls, its content is very similar to that of other international instruments such as the "Additional Protocol to the Cartagena Agreement, Commitment of the Andean Community for Democracy", the content of which was endorsed by the Constitutional Court in Judgment C-644 of 2004.

From the formal point of view, it does not find any constitutionality either. Supported by national doctrine, he points out that accession is the procedure whereby a state becomes a party to a treaty of which it is not an original signatory. It warns that while the Ushuaia Protocol does not have an accession clause-and that is why it is in principle "closed" treaty-it is valid in accordance with Article 15 of the Vienna Convention, as the signatory parties subsequently authorised (Decision 18/04 of the Common Market Council, issued on 7 July 2004), the accession of the members of the Latin American Integration Association, ALADI, to which Colombia belongs.

The intervener finally explains that the Congress of the Republic imparted the approval of the treaty through Law 1208 of 2008. However, it states that it should have referred to the authorization to adhere to the Ushuaia Protocol, and not to the approval as such, which in any way did not make the rule unconstitutional since the approval of the Congress was given in accordance with the requirements of Articles 189-2, 150-16, and 224 of the Policy Charter. In this regard, it considers it appropriate to adapt the article 1or the law and to modify the title of the law, so that there is " For which the accession of Colombia to the Protocol of Ushuaia is authorized on The Democratic Commitment in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile ", in its absence, requests to rework the wording of article 2or of the law.

5. Universidad Nacional de Colombia

The Dean of the Faculty of Law, Political and Social Sciences of the National University of Colombia, Deputy Professor Antonio José Rengifo Lozano, in which he requests the declaration of exequability of the Agreement and its law approval.

Recalls that the Common Market of the South-Mercosur-was created by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in the Foz de Iguazu Declaration, on November 30, 1985, with the purpose of promoting the free exchange and movement of goods, persons and capital, as well as greater political and cultural integration among its members. He comments that it is the Associated States Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela and Colombia, who ratified the Common Free Trade Agreement with Mercosur through Law 1000 of 2005.

Highlights that the free trade agreement with Mercosur, together with the trade agreements concluded with the Andean Community, Chile and Mexico, confirms Colombia's strategic position at the continental level and its importance for the trade and investment. According to his words, the " provides for the possibility, for Colombian businessmen, of importing commodities and goods from Mercosur at lower costs, because of the reduction in customs tariffs provided for in the Agreement ", whose asymmetric clauses favor Colombia and allow it a gradual and progressive reduction of its tariffs.

The intervener notes how at the XXVIII meeting of the Council of the Common Market, held in Asuncion (Paraguay) on June 20, 2005, the presidents of the States Parties and the Associated States declared the need to strengthen the democracy and its institutions within the regional bloc, as an indispensable condition for the fulfillment of the goals outlined.

It puts in mind that the rules of extraordinary importance for Mercosur, such as the Ushuaia Protocol on Democratic Commitment, are adopted as international treaties and therefore require ratification by the parliaments. national.

After a recount and highlighting the importance of the matters regulated in the Ushuaia Protocol on Democratic Commitment, it is necessary to evaluate its scope in the Colombian constitutional framework. To this end, it highlights the validity of the democratic institutions and the integration of the Latin American community as a guiding principle for the activity of the State, which is claimed in the preamble and article 226 (sic) of the Constitution. In that view, it considers that the Protocol tends to strike a democratic balance in the will of the parties, but without any interference in the internal affairs of the States or the imposition of commercial or financial burdens that they entail. macroeconomic imbalances for Colombia. He concludes that "from a joint perspective of the Mercosur system, there is nothing in the Ushuaia Protocol that goes against the Colombian legal order".

6. University of the Rosary

Professor Juan Ramón Martínez Vargas, from the Faculty of Jurisprudence at the University of Rosario, considers that the rules under examination are in accordance with the Constitution.

It is an exhibition of both the history of the Treaty and its articles, and it stresses that the strengthening of democratic institutions is promoted and measures are taken to overcome crisis situations when order democratic is affected.

In its in-depth analysis of the Protocol, it vindicates the Colombian State's duty to promote economic, social and political integration with other nations, especially with the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, on a basis of equity, equality and reciprocity.

Comments that due to the status of the State Associated with Mercosur, and under Article 2o of the regime of the Associated States, Colombia has an obligation to adhere to the Ushuaia Protocol on Democratic Commitment, a rule that is part of the Member of the Treaty of Asunción and all the integration agreements concluded between Mercosur and the signatories, the importance of which was endorsed by the Constitutional Court in Judgment C-864 of 2006. Consequently, in the case of the intervener, the treaty under review "closely related to the purposes, purposes and principles of our Superior Order", which is why its constitutionality must be endorsed. and that of their approval law.

IV. CONCEPT OF THE NATION ' S ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Attorney General of the Nation, by way of concept 4690, received at the General Secretariat on January 19, 2009, requests the Court to return to the Presidency of the House of Representatives the Law 1208 2008, in order to clean up a procedural defect related to the lack of prior announcement to the vote in the Second Chamber Commission. However, it considers that if the Court succeeds in establishing that the said announcement was made correctly, it must declare the exequability of the treaty and its approval law.

The head of the Public Ministry explains that in the case of Colombia the Protocol of Ushuaia received the Executive Approval of the President of the Republic on July 26, 2007, when he also arranged to submit this Agreement to the Congress (CP., art.150-16), who gave him his approval through Law 1208 of 2008.

As soon as the bill has been processed in Congress, the attorney general reviews the procedure and considers that a vice was configured in the vote in the Second House of Representatives Committee. Says about it:

" 1) At the session of May 7, 2008, contained in Act No 2, the announcement of Bill 205 of 2007 and 146 of 2007 was made, as was already noted. At the end of the sitting on that day it reads: I want to quote the Second Commission of the House for Tuesday 13 of [May] 2008, at 10:00 a.m. in the enclosure of the Second Commission. " The evidence provided for the study by the Attorney General's Office was reviewed, and no prior announcement was found for the session of May 14, 2008, contained in Act No. 26, published in the Gazette of Congress No. 594 of 2008. He pointed out that the debate took place on 14 May.

In this regard, this Office considers that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 160 of the Political Constitution, which states that no draft law will be submitted to bill is flawed because it does not meet the aforementioned requirement, because the bill was announced to be discussed and approved for the session on Tuesday, 13 June. May and in fact it was debated and approved in the session of the day Wednesday 14 May of 2008, not working on the Expedient tests the previous announcement for this last session". (Underlined out of text).

The Public Ministry puts forward that the announcement to vote on the bill in the Second House Committee was made for the session on Tuesday, May 13, 2008, but the vote only came to be held on Wednesday 14 of the same day. month and year, without a new call being made. In this regard, it draws attention to the existence of a vice in the legislative process of approval of the treaty, since it considers the article 8 of the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, which modified the Article 160 of the Constitution, according to which "no bill shall be put to a vote in session other than that previously announced".

However, he believes that as the will of the Congress for the approval of the bill was clear and indisputable, this irregularity is healthy in accordance with the provisions of the paragraph of article 241 of the Policy Charter and in the case law of this Corporation (Statement C-576/06, Autos 089/96 and 311/06). Consequently, it asks the Court " return the project to the Chamber to resume the corresponding procedure and to comply with the numeral 1 of article 157 of the Constitution, 144, 156, 157 of the Congress Regulation; and to article 8or Legislative Act 01 of 2003 ".

Nevertheless, the Attorney General addresses an in-depth analysis of the event in which the Court finds that the announcement was made in due form. To this end, he explains that Colombia applied for its membership as a State of Mercosur, granted by Decision 44 of 16 December 2004, in which the obligation to subscribe to the Ushuaia Protocol under the rules of the international law.

As for the material content of the Agreement, it maintains that the Protocol strengthens the integration process, as it constitutes an important mechanism for promoting and promoting channels of cooperation and development in line with the articles 9or, 226 and 227 of the Policy Letter. According to his words, " the Protocol serves the constitutional obligation of the State to promote the integration and stimulation of the expansion and diversification of trade, fostering between the parties commercial ties that allow to ensure a more dynamic economy that will ultimately benefit the consumer, who will also have access to a broader supply of goods, and thus achieve greater levels of social and economic progress. " Consequently, if the Court dismisses the procedural defect, it requests to declare the exequibility of the treaty and its approval law.

V. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONSIDERATIONS

1. Competence

According to the provisions of article 241 of the Constitution, it is up to the Court to decide definitively on the exilibility of international and international treaties. laws that approve them.

1.1. Scope and special features of treaty constitutionality control

The examination of constitutionality of international treaties and their approval laws presents special features that have been established by the jurisprudence of this Corporation_[1], namely: (i) is prior to to the ratification that perfects the treaty, although later to the approval of the Congress and the sanction of the government; (ii) is automatic, because it must be submitted by the government to the Court Constitutional within the six days following the sanction of the law approving the treaty; (iii) is integral, since the formal and material aspects of law and treaty are examined, confronting them with the entire Constitution, including the rules that are integrated into it; (iv) is , as it seeks to guarantee not only the principle of supremacy of the Constitution, but also the fulfillment of the commitments of the Colombian State in the face of the international community; (v) is a " (i_aj"> condition sine qua non for the ratification of the treaty and the consequent obligation of the State; and, finally, (vi) has force of constitutional res judicata. In addition, the constitutionality judgment requires the Court to address a formal and material analysis of both the treaty and its approval law.

1.2. The subject object of control

In the present case, the constitutionality of theProtocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998 "reviewed. as well as Law 1208 of 14 July 2008, by which the said Agreement is approved.

Observes the Court that the Protocol under study effectively corresponds to an international treaty. In this regard, Article 8 of the Agreement expressly states that " this Protocol is an integral part of the Treaty of Asunción and the respective integration agreements concluded between Mercosur and the Republic of Bolivia. and Mercosur and the Republic of Chile ". Consequently, the Court must address the analysis of the constitutionality of the Protocol and its Law of approval, both from the formal point of view and in its material dimension.

2. Formal review of the Treaty

In the control of the formal constitutionality of the treaty, it is examined, on the one hand, (i) the validity of the representation of the State in the process of negotiation and conclusion of the agreement-the competence of the official who signed it-; of another, (ii) the timely referral of the international instrument and its approval law to the Constitutional Court for the control of rigor (art. 241-10 CP).

2.1. Negotiation, celebration and executive approval of the Protocol

-On March 26, 1991, the Argentine Republic, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay signed the Treaty of Asunción, through which the Common Market of the South was created (henceforth Mercosur). Article 20 of the Agreement authorised the accession of the other members of the Latin American Integration Association (hereinafter ALADI)_[2], an association to which Colombia belongs_[3].

-In Decision 18/04 of July 7, 2004, the Mercosur States established the regime and conditions for membership of the members of the ALADI, one of which consisted of the accession to the " Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile "_[4].

-By letter of Diplomatic Note DMRE/CIC 67546 of December 13, 2004, signed by the Colombian Foreign Minister, the Government formally expressed the State's interest in accessing Mercosur as a Associate, pointing out that " in order to complement the process established by the Participation Regime of the Associated States of Mercosur, Colombia would proceed to adhere to the Ushuaia Protocol on Democratic Commitment in the Mercosur, as well as the Presidential Declaration on Democratic Commitment in Mercosur. "

-In Decision 44 of 16 December 2004, the Council of Mercosur granted Colombia the status of an Associate State.

-On July 26, 2007, Mr. President of the Republic of Colombia imparted Executive Approval to the "Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile". In that act, also signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the treaty was to be submitted to the Congress for approval by Law of the_[5]

Observes the Court that the approval of the Protocol of Ushuaia by the President of the Republic is valid in the light of Article 7o of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations_[6] (Law 406 of 1997), in accordance with Article 7or the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties of 1969 (Law 32 of 1985). As a result, there is no question of constitutionality from this perspective.

2.2. Referral of the Treaty and its approval by the Government to the Constitutional Court.

The Ushuaia Protocol on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile "was approved by the Congress of the Republic by Law 1208 of 14 July 2008, sanctioned by the President and published in the Official Journal 47,050 of the same date^[7].

On July 23, 2008, he was received at the General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court, from the Legal Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, an authenticated photocopy of Law 1208 of 14 July 2008, " By means of which the Ushuaia Protocol on democratic commitment is approved in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24 1998 "^[8].

The Chamber warns that the government has referred the text of the law, together with the treaty, one day after the end of the six (6) days that for this purpose provides for the numeral 10 of the article 241 of the Political Constitution.

However, by virtue of the role assigned to the Court as a guarantor of the supremacy and integrity of the Constitution, that circumstance, which is contrary to the higher order, " does not change the nature of the law

approval of the treaty, nor does it affect the validity of its legislative procedure "^[9], even if it could have resulted in the official study or the interposition of claims of unconstitutionality to address an examination integral of such acts^[10]. On the particular, since the 1994 Judgment C-059 , reiterated in a uniform manner, this Corporation specified the following:

" In exercise of the above function (article 241 above), this Corporation must decide definitively on the exilibility of international and international treaties. laws that pass them. In order to meet this objective, the Superior Statute obliges the Nation Government to forward the aforementioned instruments within six (6) days following the sanction of the law.

The constitutional significance of this omission is that the validity of the treaty's approval law is not affected, nor of its legislative procedure, however, it has two important consequences: First, the omission, The Court can automatically apprehend the study of the constitutionality of international treaties and of the approving laws^[11]; and secondly, how it is possible to escape to the knowledge of this Corporation the celebration of a and the issue of the corresponding law of approval, is from the admission of the The Court of Justice said that the court will consider the constitutional review of the treaty and the law not only on the basis of the charges presented by the citizen, but will carry out the comprehensive analysis, according to the The faculty provided in the numeral 10, of the article 241 Superior ".

In this order of ideas, the delay of one (1) day in the referral of the Treaty and its approval law does not prevent the Court from dealing with the examination of the formal and material constitutionality of these acts. Accordingly, the Chamber should examine the legislative procedure of the Protocol in the Congress of the Republic.

3. Processing of Law 1208 of July 14, 2008

According to the documentation that rests on the file, the Court then reviews the procedure in the Congress of the Republic of Bill 146 of 2007 Senate-205 of 2007, and proceeds to the formal examination of rigor.

3.1. Project presentation and publication

-Project Radication. On September 20, 2007 the Government presented to the General Secretariat of the Senate, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the bill " Through which the Protocol of Ushuaia on compromise is approved democracy in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998 ", based on the number 146 of 2007, Senate. Then the Senate Presidency dealt the matter to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of that Corporation and arranged to send a copy of it to the National Printing Office for publication_[12].

-Publication. The original text of the Protocol, the bill and its explanatory statement, were published in the Congress Gazette 469 of September 24, 2007, Senate_[13].

3.2. Process of the Project in the Second Senate Committee

-Ponance for first debate. The first debate in the Second Senate Committee was presented by Congresswoman Adriana Gutierrez Jaramillo, being published in the Congress Gazette 547 of November 1, 2007, Senate_[14].

-Announced Preview. In accordance with Act 8 of the session of October 31, 2007, published in the Congress Gazette 668 of December 18, 2007, Senate_[15], the announcement was given for discussion and vote of the project in the following terms:

" Mr. President requests the Secretary to read the projects for the next session.

The Secretary announces the following bills for discussion in the next session: at the order of the President of the Second Senate Committee of the Republic, announcement of discussion and vote on bills for the next session. (Article 8or Legislative Act number 01, 2003).

(...)

-Bill 146 of 2007, by means of which the Ushuaia Protocol on democratic commitment is approved in MERCOSUR, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24 1998 ".

(...)

Mr. President, Senator Carlos Emiro Barriga Penaranda, thanks the senators for the assistance and appointment for Wednesday, November 7 at 10:00 a.m. for projects. (Underline Underline).

-Voting and approval. As stated in Act 9 of November 7, 2007, published in the Congress Gazette 669 of December 18, 2007, Senate_[16], in that session was effectively discussed and voted on the draft law examination.

-Quorum deliberatory and decision making. The deliberative and decision-making quorum for the approval of the project was 9 of the 13 Senators that make up that Commission, as stated in Act 9 of 7 November 2007, published in the Congress Gazette 669 of 18 December 2007, Senate_[17], in accordance with the report submitted by the Secretary-General of the Senate Second Committee_[18]. The vote was taken in accordance with article 129 of the Congress rulebook.

-Publication of the definitive text. The final text approved in the first Senate debate was published in the Congress Gazette 616 of December 3, 2007, Senate_[19].

3.3. Process of the Senate Plenary Project

-Ponance for second debate. The presentation for the second debate in Plenary of the Senate was presented by Congresswoman Adriana Gutierrez Jaramillo, being published in the Congress Gazette 616 of December 3, 2007, Senate_[20].

-Announced Preview. In accordance with Act 25 of the session of December 5, 2007, published in the Congress Gazette 41 of February 15, 2008, Senate_[21], the announcement was given for discussion and vote on the bill. in the following terms:

" On the instructions of the Presidency and in accordance with Legislative Act number 01 of 2003 the Secretariat announces the projects to be discussed and approved in the next session

Madam President, the projects for the next plenary session on Monday are as follows:

(...)

-Bill 146 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the USHUAIA Protocol on democratic commitment is approved in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in USHUAIA, Argentina, on 24 July July 1998 ".

(...)

Being 8:10 p.m., the Presidency lifts the session and convenes for the day Monday, December 10, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. " (Underlined out of text).

-Voting and approval. As stated in Act 26 of December 10, 2007, published in the Congress Gazette 58 of February 26, 2008, Senate_[22], in that session was effectively discussed and voted the draft law object of examination.

-Quorum deliberatory and decision making. The deliberative and decision-making quorum for the approval of the project was 95 of the 102 Senators that make up the Plenary of that Corporation, as stated in Act 26 of December 10, 2007, published in the Gazette of the Congress 58 of February 26, 2008, Senate_[23], in accordance with the report submitted by the Secretary General of the Senate Plenary_[24]. Nominal voting was not requested, nor are any impediments or constancy of negative vote.

-Publication of the definitive text. The final text approved in the Senate floor was published in the Congress Gazette 667 of December 18, 2007, Senate_[25].

3.4. Project Process in the Second Chamber Commission

-Ponance for first debate. The first debate in the Second Chamber Commission was presented by Congressman Roovelt Rodríguez Rengifo, being published in the Congress Gazette 150 of April 17, 2008, Chamber_[26] (Project of Law 146/07 Senate-205/07 Chamber).

-Announced Preview. Pursuant to Act 2 of the Joint Session of May 7, 2008, published in the Congress Gazette 632 of September 12, 2008, Chamber_[27], the announcement for discussion and vote was given at that session. project in the following terms:

" I use the word Mrs. Secretary General of the Second House of Representatives, Dr. Pilar Rodriguez Arias.

Announcement of bills to be approved at the next session of the Second House Committee to comply with Article 8or Legislative Act No. 1 2003:

(...)

-Bill 205 of 2007 House, 146 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the Protocol of Ushuaia on democratic compromise is approved in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia (Argentina), on 24 July 1998 ".

(...)

Makes use of the Word the President of the Second Chamber Commission, honorable Representative Augusto Posada Sanchez:

Thank you Mr. President (sic). Let me quote the honourable members of the Second Chamber Commission for the next Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. " (Underline Underline).

-Voting and approval. The draft was not voted on at the session on May 13, 2008, but on the 14th of the same month and year, as stated in Act 26 of May 14, 2008, published in the Congress Gazette 591 of September 3, 2008, Camera_[28]. On this point and the eventual lack of correspondence between the announcement and the vote on the project, the Court will make some clarifications later on.

-Quorum deliberatory and decision making. The deliberative and decision-making quorum for the approval of the project was 17 of the 19 Representatives that make up the Commission, as stated in Act 26 of 14 May 2008, published in the Congress Gazette 591 of 3 September 2008, Chamber_[29], in accordance with the report submitted by the Secretary-General of the Second Chamber Commission_[30]. The vote was taken in accordance with article 129 of the Congress rulebook.

-Publication of the definitive text. The final text approved in the first Chamber debate was published in the Congress Gazette 286 of May 27, 2008, Chamber_[31].

3.5. Processing of the Project in the Chamber of the Chamber

-Ponance for second debate. The presentation for the second debate in the Chamber of the Chamber was presented by Congressman Roovvelt Rodríguez Rengifo, being published in the Congress Gazette 286 of May 27, 2008, Chamber_[32].

-Announced Preview. Pursuant to Act 113 of the session of May 28, 2008, published in the Congress Gazette 412 of July 7, 2008, Chamber_[33], the announcement for discussion and vote of the bill was given at that session. following terms:

" Secretary General (E.) Dr. Jesus Alfonso Rodriguez C.: They are going to announce the projects for discussion and vote, at next Tuesday's session or at the next session where they will discuss, or debate bills or acts legislative.

Address of the session by the Presidency, Dr. Berner Zambrano Erazo: That's right, Mr. Secretary. Please read the projects.

(...)

-Bill 205 of 2007 House, 146 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the USHUAIA Protocol on democratic compromise is approved in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Usua (sic), Argentina, July 24, 98 ".

(...)

For the session on Tuesday, June 3 were announced, Mr. President, or for the next session where they debate and discuss bills or legislative acts " (Underline text).

-Voting and approval. As stated in the Act 114 of June 3, 2008, published in the Congress Gazette 413 of July 7, 2008, Chamber_[34], in that session was effectively discussed and voted the draft law object of examination.

-Quorum deliberatory and decision making. The deliberative and decision-making quorum for the approval of the project was 155 of the 166 Representatives that make up that Plenary, as stated in Act 114 of June 3, 2008, published in the Congress Gazette 413 of the July 7, 2008, Chamber_[35], in accordance with the report submitted by the Secretary-General of the Chamber of the Chamber_[36]. No roll-call vote was requested, nor are any impediments or evidence of a negative vote recorded.

-Publication of the definitive text. The final text passed in the Chamber was published in the Congress Gazette 351 of June 11, 2008, Chamber_[37].

3.6. Presidential sanction and referral to the Constitutional Court

Forwarded the project to the President of the Republic, the latter gave the corresponding sanction on July 14, 2008, becoming Law 1208 of 2008, " by means of which the Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Commitment in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998. " The new law was published in the Official Journal 47,050 of July 14, 2008, and referred to the Court on July 23 for the constitutional control of rigor.

4. Formal Review of 1208 Act 2008

At this stage of constitutionality control, compliance with the rules is assessed in the process of forming the treaty approval law_[38]. To this end, except as regards the initiation of the debate in the Senate of the Republic (art.154 CP), the own procedure of an ordinary bill must be observed_[39]. In this way, the examination includes the analysis of the following aspects of the legislative process:

(i) Initiation of the debate in the relevant Corporation, in this case in the Senate of the Republic (article 154 CP);

(ii) Official Publications of the Project by Congress (article 157 CP);

(iii) Pre-vote announcement in each of the discussions (art. 160 CP);

(iv) Approval of the project in first and second debate in each Chamber (article 157 CP), accompanied by the verification of the quorum and the majorities with which it was approved in each instance;

(v) Compliance with terms to mediate for discussions in one and another chamber (article 160 CP);

(vi) Government Santion (article 157 CP).

According to the legislative procedure reviewed, the Court observes the following:

4.1. Initiation of the procedure in the Senate of the Republic

The final paragraph of article 154 of the Constitution states that " the bills relating to taxes will begin their passage in the House of Representatives and those that are referring to international relations, in the Senate. " On this occasion the demand was fulfilled, as soon as the bill " through which the Ushuaia Protocol on democratic commitment is approved in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, Done at Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998 ", was presented by the Government in the Senate of the Republic, where it is located under the number 146 of 2007. The matter was then distributed to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of that Corporation, where the process of rigor continued.

4.2. Official publications

In the process of the bill the official publications were made in accordance with the requirement of the numeral 1 of article 157 of the Constitution. Let's see.

4.2.1.-Project publication. The original text of the bill along with the explanatory memorandum was published in the Congress Gazette 469 of 24 September 2007, Senate, before giving it a course in the respective committee.

4.2.2.-Publication of the papers and texts approved in each of the Chambers.

-The lecture for debate in the Senate Second Committee was published in the Congressional Gazette 547 of November 1, 2007, Senate_[40].

-The final text approved in the Second Senate Committee was published in the Congress Gazette 616 of December 3, 2007, Senate_[41].

-The lecture for debate in the Senate Plenary was published in the Congress Gazette 616 of December 3, 2007, Senate_[42].

-The final text approved in the Senate Plenary was published in the Congress Gazette 667 of December 18, 2007, Senate_[43].

-The lecture for debate in the Second Chamber Commission was published in the Congress Gazette 150 of April 17, 2008, Chamber_[44].

-The final text approved in the Second Chamber Commission was published in the Congress Gazette 286 of May 27, 2008, Chamber_[45]

-The keynote for debate in the Chamber Plenary was published in the Congress Gazette 286 of May 27, 2008, Chamber_[46].

-The final text approved in the Chamber Plenary was published in the Congress Gazette 351 of June 11, 2008, Chamber_[47].

4.3. Pre-project announcement and discussion of a project

The final paragraph of Article 160 of the Constitution, added by article 8or the Legislative Act 01 of 2003, introduced a new requirement in the approval procedure for any bill, related to the announcement prior to the discussion and vote. Says the rule:

" No bill will be put to a vote in session other than that previously announced. The notice that a project will be put to the vote will be given by the Presidency of each Chamber or Commission in session other than the one in which the vote will take place. "

This requirement, which has been the subject of extensive analysis in the case law of the Constitutional Court_[48], not only constitutes a formal budget in the legislative procedure but also includes a material dimension. linked to the full realization of the democratic principle. As this Corporation has explained, "is not before a simple formal requirement, but before a condition of minimum rationality of the legislative work and transparency in the procedure of formation of the law "_[49].

Their goal is to allow both parliamentarians and the political community in general to know, in good time, the date on which a draft will be submitted for discussion and vote in each legislative instance. This prevents the Congressmen from being surprised with unforeseen votes, while ensuring that they have the possibility to reflect and prepare their arguments for the debate. To that extent, the previous "is a demand established by the Congress itself to strengthen the democratic principle, respect for the parliamentary minorities and the publicity and transparency of the process." legislative "_[50], all of which leads to a " proper formation of the democratic will within the legislative chambers "_[51].

The Court has also recognized that this requirement contributes to the exercise of political control by the community in general, since " under the influence of this requirement increases the possibilities of carrying out citizen follow up to the bills, which produces a beneficial result of widening the margins of popular control to the action of the Congress "_[52].

According to its normative configuration, the constitutional jurisprudence has reviewed the following characteristics:

(i) First of all, the announcement must always be made and its realization is inexcusable for the approval of every project, both in the committees and in the plenary sessions of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Consequently, the lack of prior announcement in any of those instances sets up a vice in the law-forming procedure.

(ii) Second, the announcement must be made by the Presidency of the respective Chamber or Commission, in a previous session and different from that in which the vote is taken. On this requirement, the Court has explained that " there is no sacramental formula or textual phrase that the Congress should use to make the notice, provided that the expression used unequivocally conveys the intent of the of the board of directors to vote on a particular bill in a future and defined session "_[53].

Agreed with the above, the case law has found constitutionally admissible expressions such as "consider", "debate", "ad", among others, used in the framework of legislative sessions, whenever that they allow to reasonably infer that the requirement in the final paragraph of article 160 of the Political Charter_[54]is referred to.

(iii) Third, the date of the vote must be true, which means that it must be determined or at least clearly determinable. On several occasions the Court has referred to the scope of this injunction, to warn that " the Legislative Chambers must point out the precise date of the session in which the discussion and vote of the bill will take place. or, failing that, it will be possible to establish compliance with that requirement if the date on which the announcement was made is possible to conclude, in an unequivocal manner, the date on which the debate and approval of the initiative will be verified. corresponding "_[55].

Accordingly, when the announcement is not made expressly for a defined or determined date, the annotated requirement will be fulfilled as long as the "context" of the session where the announcement was made it is possible to establish, with absolute clarity, the date on which the debate and the vote on a (determinable) project will take place. This leaves the manifest excessive ritual to privilege the principle of instrumentality, according to which " the procedural forms do not have a value in themselves and must be interpreted teleologically at the service of an end noun "_[56].

(iv) Finally, a project cannot be voted on in a session other than that for which it has previously been announced. This requirement, which is directly related to the previous ones, seeks to provide a minimum of certainty to the congressmen and the political community in general about the moment when the debate and vote on a project will be fulfilled.

Now, when for any reason the debate is not held in the announced session, the Court has pointed out that it is necessary to remake a new announcement, in the same terms and conditions provided for in the article 160 Higher, as only this way ensures transparency in democratic deliberation; is what the case law has called "ad chain". Regarding the importance and scope of such a requirement, in Judgment C-933 of 2006 this Corporation held the following:

" When voting on a project is postponed indefinitely, so it does not take place in the session for which it was announced, it is the duty of the boards to continue with the ad chain; that is, to reiterate the The vote in each of the sessions preceding the one in which the approval of the project is actually carried out, since " there is no other constitutional instrument to guarantee the effective realization of the The aim is to satisfy by means of the formality of the notice, which-as has been seen-consists to prevent congressmen and the community in general from being surprised with bad or surreptitious votes. " If this does not occur, that is, if the temporary sequence of the notice is not met when for reasons The debate and vote on a bill is postponed indefinitely, it is understood that the vote was held in a session other than the one that was announced, in violation of the requirement of the article 160 of the Policy Letter.

In particular, the Court has pointed out that, in spite of presenting the phenomenon of the rupture of the chain of announcements with respect to a bill whose vote has been postponed indefinitely, there is no breach of unconstitutionality due to the lack of knowledge of the article 160 , when in the session immediately preceding the one in which the approval of the project, " the same was specifically announced to be put to vote in that session. " If the latter has no occurrence, that is, if in addition to breaking the chain of announcements the project postponed indefinitely is voted without having announced such fact in the previous session, it is understood that the requirement of "ad" previously enshrined in the article 160 Superior ". (Underlined out of text)

In this order of ideas, consider the Chamber that when the announcement has been made for a certain or certain date, it is in it when the debate and the vote of the respective project will have to be brought forward. And when for some circumstance it does not happen on that date it becomes essential to make a new announcement, because otherwise a vice of legislative procedure will be configured for violation of the final paragraph of article 160 of the Constitution.

With these elements of trial the Court enters to examine the procedure related to the announcement prior to the vote of Bill 146 of 2007 Senado-205 of 2007 Chamber, " By means of which the Protocol of Ushuaia is approved on democratic commitment in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on 24 July 1998.

4.4. Existence of a procedural defect in the Second Chamber Commission: lack of correspondence between the prior announcement and the vote of the bill

On the prior announcement of the bill in the Congress of the Republic, the Court finds the following:

4.4.1. In the debate in the Second Senate Committee, the announcement was made on 31 October 2007 for the next sitting, that is, on a different date than the vote. Likewise, the date of the vote was determined, as it was called "for Wednesday, November 7", when the project was effectively debated and approved. All this can be verified according to the consecutive Acts (8 and 9) and the Congress Gacetas where they were published.

4.4.2. In the Senate Plenary, the announcement was made on 5 December 2007 for the next sitting, that is, on a different date than the vote. Likewise, the date of the vote was determined, as it was called "for the day Monday 10 December 2007", when the project was effectively debated and approved. All of this can be verified according to the consecutive Acts (25 and 26) and the Congress Gacetas where they were published.

4.4.3. In the Second Chamber Commission the announcement was made on May 7, 2008, for the "next session", which in turn was called for Tuesday, May 13, 2008. This way the announcement was made in express form for a certain and previously determined date, in the following terms_[57]:

" I use the word Mrs. Secretary General of the Second House of Representatives, Dr. Pilar Rodriguez Arias.

Announcement of bills to be approved at the next session of the Second House Committee to comply with Article 8or the Legislative Act Number 1 of 2003:

(...)

-Bill 205 of 2007 House, 146 of 2007 Senate, by means of which the Protocol of Ushuaia on democratic compromise is approved in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia (Argentina), on 24 July 1998 ".

(...)

Makes use of the Word the President of the Second Chamber Commission, honorable representative Augusto Posada Sanchez:

Thank you Mr. President (sic). Let me quote the honourable members of the Second Chamber Commission for the next Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. " (Underline Underline).

Despite the above, the Chamber finds that the debate and vote on the project were held on Wednesday 14 May 2008, that is, one day after the announced date_[58].

At this point the head of the Public Ministry draws attention to the existence of a vice in the legislative process, "since the bill was announced to be discussed and approved for the session of Tuesday, May 13, and in reality was discussed and approved at the session on Wednesday 14 May 2008, not working on the test of the Expedient the previous announcement for this last session ".

In view of the inadequacy of evidence of the legislative procedure in the Second Committee of the House, the Court asked the Secretary-General of that Commission to inform and certify whether the 13 May 2008 held or not the session scheduled to debate and vote on the bill number 205 of 2007 House, 146 of 2007 Senate. The Secretariat addressed the request and reported on " that on Tuesday, 13 May 2008, no session was held in the Second Committee of the House, because the session was quoted by the President of the House in a joint session of the May 7 May for that date, it was not realized that on May 13 the official visit of Canadian parliamentarians in the Congress was attended ". He further explained that on the agenda for the week between 12 and 16 May 2008, the President of the Commission only scheduled an informal session on Tuesday 13 May, while the session to discuss and vote on the draft scheduled for Wednesday, May 14, when_[59]was finally met.

Examined the evidence submitted, the Court considers that the Chief of the Public Prosecutor's Office is right when he warns the existence of a legislative procedure. Indeed, the announcement of discussion and vote on the project was for a certain and determined date-13 May 2008-so it was imperative to do so on that date and not a day later-14 May 2008-as it finally happened, without in the test case of the ad for this last session.

If the bill could not be debated in the session for which it was initially convened-as it was not made before the visit of Canadian parliamentarians-the Presidency of the Second House Committee had the inexcusable duty of make a new announcement and point to a new date (determined or clearly determinable). However, as this did not happen, it is clear that the temporary sequence of the pre-discussion and vote announcement (ad chain) was broken.

Now, it considers the Court that the duty to make a new announcement could not be ignored or taken as a compliment by the fact that the session of 13 May was not developed as a formal session, since in this case the call was for a precise and determined date. As a result, when the debate and the vote on the draft were not met on that day, it automatically generated a situation of uncertainty in the congressmen and the political community in general (as there are not enough elements to determine when the vote on the project would take place), which could only be overcome with a new call according to the constitutional requirements outlined above. However, as the new call was never made, a vice was configured in the legislative procedure for violation of the final paragraph of article 160 of the Political Charter.

It should be remembered that this Corporation has already established the existence of similar procedural defects, precisely in examining the constitutionality of laws approving treaties. Only in an illustrative way are the following decisions highlighted:

-In Judgment C-930 , 2005, the Law 943 of 2005 was declared inexequable, " by means of which the " Convention of recognition and validity of diplomas, diplomas and academic certificates of partial studies of higher education between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia, subscribed in the city of La Paz at twenty (20) days of August of the year two thousand one (2001) ", due to procedural defects related to the voting of the project in a session other than the announced_[60].

-In Judgment C-241 of 2006 the Court declared the 2005 Law 968 inexequable, " by means of which the Permanent Migratory Statute between Colombia and Colombia is approved. Ecuador ", because there was no clarity about the announcement of the vote on the bill, which led to the fact that the congressmen were not sure of the time when the votes were going to be held.

-In the 2006 Auto 311 the Court found a vice in the procedure of Law 1017 of 2006, " By means of which the Convention on the laundering, detection and confiscation of the products of the a crime ', made in Strasbourg on 8 November 1990', because neither the Secretary nor the President of the Second Chamber of the House Committee pointed out which date or for which the vote on the project was scheduled, without the context of the It was possible to determine the date on which such a vote would take place. The Court said:

" In the specific case, as follows from the reading of Act No 12 of 2005, before the end of the debate by the President of the Commission and the request to the General Secretariat to continue with the reading of the agenda, the Secretariat reported: "Mr. President, I would be to announce 3 projects," without the effect of having pointed out, as did the President either, by which date or by which session the vote was scheduled.

Now, from the context of the discussions it is also not possible to derive the date on which such a vote would take place. The content of the minutes does not extract any item from which it can be deduced for which session or which date the project was scheduled to vote, regardless of whether the approval of the project occurred in the session next. The omission in the indication of the date or session in which such a procedure should take place makes that announcement not determined or determinable and, therefore, contrary to the requirements set out in the case-law. ' (Highlighted out of text).

-In Case C-576 2006 was declared inexequable by Law 994 of 2005, " by means of which the Stockholm Convention on Organic Pollutants is approved persistent ", as there was a breakdown of the ad chain for the project vote. The providence also reviews the jurisprudential line in the matter developed up to then by this Corporation.

-In the 2007 Auto 013 the Court found a vice in the procedure of Law 1037 of 2006, " for which the 'Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage' is approved, approved at the General Conference of UNESCO, at its 32nd meeting, held in Paris and closed on seventeen (17) October of two thousand three (2003) and made and signed in Paris the three (3) of November of two thousand three (2003) ", because in the Second Commission of the The announcement was made without a certain date for the vote on the project_[61].

-In the 2007 Auto 053 it was found that in the passage of Law 1073 of July 31, 2006, "by means of which the" Convention on the Notification or Transfer Abroad is approved On 15 November 1965, theCommission of the House incurred a procedural defect, as it did not specify the date on which it would be subject to the procedure. discussion and approval of the announced projects.

-In the 2007 Auto 119 the Court declared the existence of a vice in the procedure of Law 1072 of July 31, 2006, " By means of which the Amendment to Article 1 of the Convention on the Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be considered as excessively harmful or of indiscriminate effects ' adopted at the second examination conference of the States Parties to the Convention, Twenty-one (21) December of two thousand one (2001), in Geneva, Switzerland ", for the project was approved without the prior notice being given precisely in which session the vote would take place or could be deduced from the context.

-Finally, in the Auto 126 of 2008 a vitio of processing was registered in the approval of Law 1141 of 2007 " by means of which the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Colombia and the Government of the People's Republic of China on Cooperation in Animal Health and Quarantine is approved, signed in Beijing at 6 days of April ", as soon as the announcement for the second debate in the House of Representatives was held for a certain date, but the approval was fulfilled in the subsequent session, " without during the announced session allusion to the decision to postpone the bill vote ".

4.4.4. In summary, in accordance with the parameters outlined in broad constitutional case law and the probative material close to it, the Court notes the existence of a procedural defect in the passage of Law 1208 of 2008, due to the fact that the Second Committee of the House of Representatives failed to comply with the requirement laid down in Article 8or Legislative Act 01 of 2003, which amended the article 160 of the Constitution, according to which "no bill shall be put to a vote in session other than that previously announced".

4.5. The identified processing vice is of a subsable nature

4.5.1. However, the Court observes that the vice identified in the approval procedure of Law 1208 of 2008 is subsable, so that the matter must be returned to the Congress so that it can be corrected. irregularity.

It should be recalled that in Case C-576 of 2006 and in the 2006 Auto 311, the Court unified the case-law on the subsainable or insubsable character of the procedural defects when the Court has failed to fulfil its obligations. a requirement of agreement between the prior notice and the vote of a project on the date effectively announced.

the first decision, the Court explained that the possibility that the yerro may be corrected or not by the Congress depends on the context in which the vice occurred and its impact on the formation of the legislative will. Thus, " the essential condition of subsability is that the Senate has given its opinion in such a way that the House where, by constitutional mandate, the process of the bills of approval of a treaty has begun has been expressed in a complete way ". Consequently, " a failure to comply with the aforementioned requirement at a time after the vote in the Senate Plenary is considered a subsable vice that will trigger the return of the approval of a international treaty to the Congress to remedy the vice and continue its processing from the moment it was produced, when the other conditions of subsability are met ". This is explained by the fact that in these events one of the structural stages of the legislative process has been completed in the Congress of the Republic.

-For its part, in the 2006 Auto 311 the Court noted that, " in addition to the conditions stated in Judgment C-576 of 2006, (...) vice is subsable when its occurrence does not affect negatively in the manifestation of the will of the congressional minorities ".

The above criteria have been reiterated in subsequent decisions, which has allowed the return to Congress of those matters in which (i) the aforementioned irregularity is presented in the House of Representatives-Commission or Plenary-and (ii) there are no discrepancies in project approval that could affect minority rights_[62].

4.5.2.-The Court has established the existence of a vice in the approval procedure of Law 1208 of 2008, consisting in the omission of the previous announcement required by the final article 160 of the Constitution, for the session where the project was discussed and approved by the Second House Committee of Representatives, as it was announced to be discussed and approved at the session on Tuesday 13 May 2008 and was actually debated and approved at the session on Wednesday May 14, 2008, without any evidence of the announcement for this last session.

However, this vice is subsable according to the constitutional jurisprudence. On the one hand, (i) because the vice occurred during the third debate of the procedure, that is, when the approval of the bill had already been verified in the Senate of the Republic, thus fulfilling one of the stages of the process of formation of the law; and, on the other hand, (ii) because the votes during the entire procedure were unanimous, without any opposition to the project presented by the government National, so that the rights of parliamentary minorities are not affected.

As a consequence of the foregoing, the paragraph of Article 241 of the Constitution is applicable in this case, according to which " when the Court finds vices of The procedure under which the act is subject to control shall be returned to the authority which has provided it with a view to the amendment of the defect observed. Vice-healed, it will decide on the exequability of the act ".

To this end, similar to what has been decided in previous opportunities_[63], the Court will return the bill to the Second Committee of the House of Representatives, for being the instance in which the procedural vice was configured, to resume processing of the bill by complying with the notice for a vote provided for in the final article of article 160 Superior and in accordance with the rules laid down in the constitutional case law.

Taking into account the provisions of Article 202 of Law 5 of 1992, the Court will grant the Second Chamber of the House a maximum term of thirty (30) days, counted from the notification of this providence, in order to correct the noted vice. If this procedure is completed, the Congress will have until December 16, 2009 to conclude the process of forming the law.

passage omitted] The President of the Republic will have the deadline indicated in the Charter for the corresponding sanction, while retaining the same numbering of the approved law as it is returned, since when a vice president of the Congress of the Republic of Mexico is subsals the Republic has no place to modify the nominal identification of the project and the resulting approval law_[64]. Finally, once the presidential sanction has been completed, the law must be sent to the Court to decide definitively on its constitutionality and the treaty that it approves.

5. Conclusion

Examined the procedure for dispensing in the Congress of the Republic to Bill No. 146 of 2007 Senate-205 of 2007 House, " By means of which the Ushuaia Protocol on democratic commitment in Mercosur is approved, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998 ", subsequently approved as Law 1208 of 2008, the Court warns the existence of a vice in the procedure: the lack of correspondence between the prior notice and the vote on the project in the Commission Second of the House of Representatives, to the detriment of Article 8or of Legislative Act 01 of 2003, which amended Article 160 of the Constitution, according to which "no bill will be put to a vote in session other than that previously announced".

Cambio] However, as the aforementioned vice is subsanable, it will return the file to the Second Commission of the House of Representatives to restate the respective procedure. The Second Commission of the House will have a period of thirty (30) days, counted from the notification of this order in the Presidency of the House, to remedy the vice detected in this providence. Once that irregularity has been remedied, the House of Representatives will have until 16 December 2009 to comply with the later stages of the legislative process. Then the President of the Republic will have the deadline provided for in the Charter to sanction the bill (retaining the same numbering of the approved law that is returned) and finally the President of the Congress will forward to the Court the href="ley_1208_2008.html#1"> 1208 2008 for you to decide on its exequability.

VI. DECISION

On the merits of the above, the Plena Chamber of the Constitutional Court, administering justice on behalf of the people and by mandate of the Constitution,

RESOLVES:

First. By this Corporation's General Secretariat, Return to the Chair of the House of Representatives Law 1208 of July 14, 2008, " By means of which the Protocol of Ushuaia on democratic commitment in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998, order to remedy the vice of procedure indicated in this providence.

Second. Grant to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives the term of thirty (30) days, counted from the notification of this order to the presidency of the same, to remedy the vice detected in this providence.

Third. Once the vice referred to in the consideration of this providence has been remedied, the House of Representatives will have until 16 December 2009 to comply with the later stages of the legislative process. Then the President of the Republic will have the deadline set in the Charter to sanction the bill.

Fourth. The President of the Congress will forward to the Court the corresponding law, in order to decide definitively on his exilibility.

Copy, notify, communicate to the National Government, insert in the Constitutional Court Gazette and comply.

Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, President; Maria Victoria Calle Correa, Mauricio González Cuervo, Juan Carlos Henao Pérez, Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva, Magistrates; Martha Victoria Sachica Mendez, General Secretariat.

Constitutional Court

General Secretariat

Office No. OPC-082/10

Bogotá D. C., twelve (12) February two thousand ten (2010)

Doctor

JAVIER CÁCERES LEAL

President

Honorable Congress of the Republic

City

Reference: case number LAT-333. Law 1208 of 2008 "by means of which the protocol of Ushuaia is approved on the democratic commitment in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on 24 July 1998 ".

Note: When answering please quote the case number, trade and magistrate.

Respected doctor:

Comedies and in order to comply with the provisions of the honorable Magistrate Dr. Jorge I. Palacio Palacio, in providence of February 10, 2010, carefully I allow you to inform you, the ordered in the provided back described, the relevant part of which is transcribed:

" First. Return the file to the President of the Congress for the purpose of referring it to the National Government for the effect of the presidential sanction, according to the parameters mentioned in the Auto 171 of 2009.

Second. Complied with the above procedure, the President of the Congress will forward to the Court the corresponding law to decide definitively on exequability. "

It is to be noted that the legislative file is returned with two notebooks with 292 and 222 folios.

Carefully,

The General Secretariat,

Martha Victoria Sachica Mendez.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

AUTO

Ref.: LAT file-333

Review of the constitutionality of the " Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic Engagement in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998, and the Law approval No 1208 of July 14, 2008.

Chief Judge: Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio

Bogotá D. C., ten (10) February of two thousand ten (2010).

The undersigned magistrate, in exercise of his constitutional and legal powers, will propose the following:

AUTO

I. BACKGROUND

1. In compliance with the provisions of article 241 of the Political Charter, the constitutional review of the " Protocol of Ushuaia on democratic commitment in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998 ", and the" No 1208 approving Law of July 2008.

2. In the analysis of the legislative procedure, the Court noted the existence of a procedural vice of a subsable character, concerning the failure to comply with the requirement to announce prior to the discussion and vote of the bill in the Second Commission of the House of Representatives. Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of the paragraph of Article 241 of the Constitution, the Court of Justice proposed the Auto 171 of 2009, by which it ordered the return of the file legislative Congress of the Republic to correct the vice. It then resolved the following:

" First. By General Secretariat of this Corporation, RETURN to the Chair of the House of Representatives Law 1208 of July 14, 2008, by means of which the Protocol of Ushuaia on a democratic commitment in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24, 1998, in order to remedy the procedural vice mentioned in this providence.

Second. Concede to the Second Permanent Constitutional Commission of the House of Representatives the term of thirty (30) days, counted from the notification of this order to the presidency of the same, to subsane the vice detected in this providence.

Third. Once the vice referred to in the consideration of this providence has been remedied, the House of Representatives will have until 16 December 2009 to comply with the later stages of the legislative process. Then the President of the Republic will have the deadline set in the Charter to sanction the bill.

Fourth. The President of the Congress will forward to the Court the corresponding law, in order to decide definitively on his exequability. (Highlighted out of text)

3. In consideration of the provisions of the previous one provided and exhausted the legislative process in the House of Representatives, the President of the Congress, by communication received at the General Secretariat of the Court on 4 December 2009, referred the file to continue the constitutional review process of the treaty and its approval law.

4. However, the Office warns that the provisions of the third party of the resolution part of the 2009 Auto-171, regarding the Presidential Santion, have not been heeded.

5. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of the Precise Auto and taking into account the precedents in the case of the case_[1A] the legislative file will be returned to the Presidency of the Congress for the aforementioned purposes.

RESOLVES:

First. RETURN the file to the President of the Congress in order to refer it to the National Government for the effect of the presidential sanction, according to the parameters mentioned in the Auto 171 of 2009.

Second. After the previous procedure, the President of the Congress will forward to the Court the corresponding law to decide definitively on his exequability.

Fulfill.

Jorge Ivan Palacio Palacio, Magistrate; Martha Victoria Sachica Mendez, General Secretariat.

In accordance with the provisions of the Autos: 171 dated April 29, 2009 and February 10, 2010-Expediente LAT-333, of the Plena Chamber of the Constitutional Court, which in its part motivates it:

" (...)

"Then the President of the Republic will have the deadline provided for in the Charter to sanction the bill (retaining the same numbering of the approving law that is returned)," the law is sanctioned here href="ley_1208_2008.html#1"> 1208 on July 14, 2008, "by means of which the Ushuaia protocol on democratic engagement is approved in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, made in Ushuaia, Argentina, on July 24 1998 ", retaining its numbering and initial dates.

COLOMBIA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Publish and comply.

Execute, upon review of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to article 241-10 of the Political Constitution.

Dada en Bogotá, D. C., a 16 de marzo de 2010.

ALVARO URIBE VELEZ

The Director of the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic, in charge of the Duties of the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs,

Bernardo Moreno Villegas.

* * *

1 Cfr., among many others, the following Constitutional Court rulings: C-378 , 1996, C-682 , 1996, C-468, 1997, C-400 1998, C-924 of 2000, C-206 of 2005, C-176 of 2006, C-958 of 2007, C-927 of 2007, C-859 of 2007, C-036 of 2008, C-464 of 2008, C-387 of 2008, C-383 of 2008, C-189 of 2008, C-121 of 2008 and C-1056 of 2008.

2 " Article 20. This Treaty shall be open to accession, by negotiation, to the other member countries of the Latin American Integration Association, whose applications may be examined by the States Parties after five years of validity of this Treaty. Treaty. However, applications submitted by member countries of the Latin American Integration Association that do not form part of sub-regional integration schemes or an extraregional association may be considered before the deadline. The approval of applications shall be the subject of a unanimous decision of the States Parties ".

3 Treaty of Montevideo of 1980, approved in Colombia by Law 45 of 1981, by means of which the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI) was created. They signed the Treaty Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, and more recently joined the Republic of Cuba.

4 Decision 18/04 of 7 July 2004. " Article 2o. The Countries interested in acquiring the status of State Associated with Mercosur will have to present the respective request to the Council of the Common Market, through the Presidency Pro Tempore of Mercosur and to adhere to the Protocol of Ushuaia on Democratic commitment in Mercosur, the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, and also to adhere to the "Presidential Declaration on Democratic Commitment in Mercosur", held on June 25, 1996 in Potrero de Funes, Pcia. de San Luis, Republic of Argentina, which has already been signed by the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile "

5 Notebook 2, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, folio 3.

6 Article 7Bo of the Vienna Convention states: " Article 7. FULL POWERS. 1. For the adoption of an authentication of the text of a treaty, in order to express the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, a person shall be deemed to represent a State: (...) 2. By virtue of his duties, and without having to submit full powers, shall be deemed to represent their State: (a) the Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers of Foreign Affairs, for the execution of all acts concerning the conclusion of a Treaty; (...) ". (Underline text).

7 Main Notebook, folio 1, and ss.

8 Main Notebook, Foles 2-8. The remiss letter appears dated July 22, 2008, but such communication was effectively received at the General Secretariat of the Court on July 23, 2008.

9 Constitutional Court, Judgment C-120 of 2004. In the same sense, they can be consulted, among others, the Sentences C-059 of 1994, C-951 of 2000, C-580 of 2002, C-533 of 2004, C- 781 from 2004 and C-864 from 2006.

10 Idem.

11 Provides article 44 of Decree 2067 of 1991: " In the processes of constitutionality of the treaties and of the laws that approve them 241 numeral 10 of the Constitution, the provisions for the control of the draft statutory laws will apply in the relevant . " In turn, article 39 of the same decree states: " The President of the Congress will send to the Constitutional Court the authentic of the bills of statutory laws immediately after have approved in the second debate. If I fail to do so, the President of the Constitutional Court will request the authentic one from the Constitutional Court to the Secretariat of the Chamber where the second debate is held . (Underlined outside of the original text):

12 Notebook 4, Republic Senate Plenary, folio 207.

13 Pages 29 to 32. See Notebook 3, Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic.

14 Pages 26 and 27. See Notebook 3, Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic.

15 Page 44. See Notebook 3, Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic.

16 Pages 9 and 11. See Notebook 3, Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic.

17 Pages 1 and 2. See Notebook 3, Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic.

18 Notebook 3, Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic, Folios 1-2.

19 Page 18. See Notebook 4, Plenary of the Senate of the Republic.

20 Pages 14-18. See Notebook 4, Plenary of the Senate of the Republic.

21 Page 45-46. See Notebook 4, Plenary of the Senate of the Republic.

22 Pages 41-42. See Notebook 4, Plenary of the Senate of the Republic.

23 Pages 1-2. See Notebook 4, Plenary of the Senate of the Republic.

24 Notebook 4, Senate Plenary, Foles 1-2.

25 Congressional Gazette 667 of December 18, 2007, page 33.

26 Pages 7-11. See Notebook 5, Second Chamber Commission.

27 Page 20. See Notebook 8, Second Chamber Commission. The joint session obeyed the message of urgency presented by the government on March 28, 2008, to debate the bill number 232/08 Senate-277/2008-House, concerning the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Colombia and the Republics of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

28 Pages 18-19. See Notebook 7, Second Chamber Commission.

29 Pages 1-2. See Notebook 7, Second Chamber Commission.

30 Notebook 5, Second Chamber Commission, Foles 1-2.

31 Pages 9-11. See Notebook 6, Chamber Plenum.

32 Pages 9-11. See Notebook 6, Chamber Plenum.

33 Page 22-24. See Notebook 6, House Plenary.

34 Page 13. See Notebook 6, Chamber Plenum.

35 Pages 1-2. See Notebook 6, Chamber Plenum.

36 Notebook 6, Chamber Plenary, folio 3.

37 Pages 13-14. See Notebook 6, Chamber Plenum.

38 Article 150-14 of the Constitution states that it is up to the Congress " Approve or Improve the Treaties that the Government celebrates with other States or entities governed by international law. By means of such treaties, the State may, on grounds of fairness, reciprocity and national convenience, partially transfer certain privileges to international organizations, which aim to promote or consolidate integration. economic with other states ".

39 The Organic Law of Congress, Law 5a of 1992, has in its article 204: " PROCEDURE. The draft organic law, statutory law, the law of the budget, the law on human rights and the law on international treaties will be dealt with by the ordinary or common legislative procedure, with the specialties established in the Constitution and in this Regulation "

40 Pages 26 and 27. See Notebook 3, Second Commission of the Senate of the Republic.

41 Page 18. See Notebook 4, Plenary of the Senate of the Republic.

42 Pages 14-18. See Notebook 4, Plenary of the Senate of the Republic.

43 Congressional Gazette 667 of December 18, 2007, page 33.

44 Pages 7-11. See Notebook 5, Second Chamber Commission.

45 Pages 9-11. See Notebook 6, Chamber Plenum.

46 Pages 9-11. See Notebook 6, Chamber Plenum.

47 Pages 13-14. See Notebook 6, Chamber Plenum.

48 cfr., Constitutional Court, 2004 C-533 Statements, C-644 , 2004, C-333 , 2005, C- 400 from 2005, C-473 from 2005, C-241 from 2006, C-576 from 2006, C-933 from 2006, C- 665 from 2007, C-927 2007, as well as Autos 038 of 2004, 311 of 2006, 013 of 2007, 053 of 2007, 232 of 2007, 081 of 2008 and 126 of 2008, among other decisions.

49 Constitutional Court, Auto 081 of 2008.

50 Constitutional Court, Statement C-333 , 2005.

51 Constitutional Court, 2007 Auto 232.

52 Constitutional Court, Auto 126 of 2008.

53 Constitutional Court, Autos 232 of 2007 and 081 of 2008, among others.

54 Cfr. Constitutional Court, Sentences C-475 of 2005, C-1040 of 2005, C-241 of 2006, C-276 of 2006, Autos 311 of 2006, 232 of 2007, 081, 2008, among others.

55 Auto 081 of 2008. See also Autos 232 of 2007, 053 of 2007, 311 of 2006, 089 of 2005, as well as Sentences C-927 of 2007, C-276 of 2006, C-649 of 2006 and C- 576 2006, among others.

56 Constitutional Court, Case C-737 of 2001.

57 Act 2 of the Joint Session of May 7, 2008, published in the Congress Gazette 632 of September 12, 2008, House, page 20. Notebook 8, Second Chamber Commission.

58 Act 26, published in the Congressional Gazette 581 of 2008.

59 Notebook 9, Second Chamber Commission, Folios 1-5.

60 Statement C-930 2005: " Having regard to the foregoing, the Court observes that the aforementioned interruption existed in the legislative procedure under study for the approval of the initiative in second debate in the Senate of the Republic. Indeed, at the plenary on June 15, 2004, was announced the vote on the project for the next session, that is, on June 16 of the same year. Thus, the initiative was included in the agenda of that session, but was not discussed or approved, so that, in view of the requirement set out in Article 160 C.P., it was necessary to continue with the ad sequence. However, this obligation was pretermitised in approving the project in the plenary on June 17, 2004, that is, in a session other than that in which the vote was announced. As a result, a vice was incurred in the legislative procedure, which, according to the arguments put forward, carries the inexequibility of the approval law. (Highlighted out of text).

61 Auto 013 of 2007: "The undersecretary was limited at the end of the session of September 27, 2005, to point out the" announcement of projects ", among which was Project No. 069/05 Camara and 244/05 Senate, without for the effect it would have indicated, nor did the president of the Commission, any date or the session for which the vote of the said bill was scheduled. In this way, the inclusion of the project referred to in the terms behind it does not constitute compliance with the command superior to what has been referred, since this implies a prior and certain knowledge from the Members of Congress of the date on which the vote on a given project will take place, a circumstance which was not presented in the present case ". (Highlighted out of text).

62 cfr., Constitutional Court, Cars 013 of 2007, 053 of 2007, 078 of 2007, 119 of 2007, 232 of 2007, and 126 of 2008, among other decisions.

63 cfr., Constitutional Court, Cars 013 of 2007, 053 of 2007, 078 of 2007, 119 of 2007, 232 of 2007, and 126 of 2008, among others.

64 Cfr., Constitutional Court, Case C-836, 2006.

1A. Cfr. Constitutional Court, July 19, 2007, under the constitutional review process of the "Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage", approved at the UNESCO General Conference, at its meeting held in Paris and closed on seventeen (17) October 2003, and Law 1037 of , which was approved by the latter. C-120 statement 2008.

Cfr. Constitutional Court, July 10, 2007, within the constitutional review process of Law 1073 of 31, 2006, " by means of which the Convention on the Notice or Transfer of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters "made in The Hague on November 15, 1965". Judgment C-958 , 2007.