Caducidad del medio de control reparación directa en los delitos de lesa humanidad cometidos por agentes del estado colombiano

Abstract

The judgment rendered as a result of the sue or means of administrative contentious control known as direct reparation, as regards the State's liability for crimes against humanity, when committed by its agents, should not be reduced to the literal nature of article 164, numeral 2, literal i) of law 1437 of 2011 (opportunity to present the demand writ), however the interpretation that derives from that regulation should be based on the effectiveness of the substantive right of the victim, since in our country, although the criminal law punishes the conduct of the offender (in this case of the state agent) at any time after the commission of the crime against humanity, the administrative contentious jurisdiction punishes - in a few cases - the victims, by imposing them, within a limited period of time, to submit a claim, under penalty of the legal phenomenon of forfeiture, notwithstanding what is at stake is human dignity, the basis of all rights and duties, and special protection Constitutional law, international humanitarian law and human rights. The present article, given the above, is an academic reflection, from the point of view of reasonableness and socio-legal proportionality that should exist between the inhabitants, residents or nationals of Colombia who sue the nation so that the protection of their human rights be restored or compensated - which should be imprescriptible -. This in order that the reader can analyze the fact that the expiration of the action of direct reparation, as it exists today in our country, is a collateral damage that the victim of state abuse must also endure, and which clearly contradicts human dignity and life, among other rights. In order to elaborate the present article, the descriptive methodological typology was used, taking into account a socio-legal vision of the problem, since the violation of human rights by agents of the state has become a systematic phenomenon. It will analyze its origins, evolution, its current status and jurisprudence in this regard. The previous words taking into account that in many occasions the affected one has not had the possibility to go to the aid of the state, as a consequence of external and internal factors, which concludes to us that the punishment at any time to the responsible for violating human rights (in order for him to be resorted to) does not make sense , whether the integral reparation will be subject to the establishment of the direct reparation sue within the two years following the occurrence of the event causing the damage or " when the plaintiff had or should have been aware of it if it was later and whenever they prove the impossibility of having known it on the date of its occurrence”.