Escuchas Ilícitas, un Comodín que Suple las Exigencias de los Modelos Tarifados de Vigilancia y Restricción

Abstract

The interception of communications in Colombia is an investigative act with minimal legislative regulation, extensive doctrine, and constantly evolving jurisprudence. This research examines whether this investigative mechanism is an arbitrary act of the State, lacking prior constitutional authorization and restricting fundamental rights of both suspects and third parties not involved in the process. It argues for its exclusion from criminal proceedings due to its potential violation of human rights.

The study addresses four main axes: the impact on the principle of non-self-incrimination ("nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare"), the violation of the right to privacy of uninvolved interlocutors, the legality of evidence under international standards, and the application of the exclusionary rule in comparative law. It critically examines the intersection between fundamental guarantees and investigative efficiency, highlighting the disproportionate use of criminal law in the context of the "enemy criminal law."

From a structural-functionalist approach and through doctrinal, normative, and jurisprudential analysis, the study questions the constitutional validity of communication interception and its impact on the justice model. Colombian and international legal frameworks are contrasted to assess the coherence and legitimacy of this practice within the criminal system. Finally, a critical review of the justice administration system is proposed to ensure respect for fundamental rights and prevent the instrumentalization of citizens as mere means for penal efficiency.