Colombia The Judiciary
Plaza de Bolívar Bogotá prior to the 1985 destruction of the
Palace of Justice, seen here in background on right
Courtesy Embassy of Colombia, Washington
The judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, under
which are
the district superior, circuit, municipal, and lower
courts, and
the Council of State, which supervises a system of
administrative
courts that scrutinize acts and decrees issued by
executive and
decentralized agencies. The executive branch exercises
some control
over the judicial process through the Ministry of Justice
and the
Council of State. The Ministry of Justice is responsible
for
administering aspects of the legal and judicial system,
such as the
actual operation of the courts and penal system.
The Supreme Court is organized into four chambers
dealing with
civil, criminal, and labor appeals and with constitutional
procedure. The first three chambers sit together as a
Plenary
Committee to resolve particularly important matters and
government
business. The Plenary Court's constitutional mandate
grants it the
authority to try high government officials for misconduct
or
violation of the laws, to deal with legal matters
concerning
foreign governments, and to address other cases assigned
by law to
the Supreme Court. It also rules on the constitutionality
of
legislation under Article 90, which permits the president
to
challenge the constitutionality of a law, and Article 124,
whereby
any citizen may claim that a conflict exists between
legislation
and the Constitution.
The Senate and the House of Representatives each
appoints onehalf of the twenty-four-member Supreme Court from a list
of
nominees submitted by the president. Appointments are for
life. The
Supreme Court selects the members of the district superior
courts,
who, in turn, select magistrates for the lesser judicial
positions
in their districts. District magistrates serve five-year
terms and
may be reappointed indefinitely. Congress may remove from
office a
judge considered to be unfit because of conduct or age.
The Council of State has two functions. First, it acts
as an
advisory board to the president by drafting bills and
codes
concerned with administration and even by proposing
legislative
reforms in this area. Second, it acts as the supreme
administrative
tribunal, presiding over a hierarchy of courts that hears
complaints against the government and public officials.
With its
power of judicial review over the constitutionality of
administrative codes, decrees, and legislation, the
Council of
State is given equal rank with the Supreme Court in the
judicial
structure. Half of the Council of State's ten members are
elected
biannually for four-year terms from a list submitted to
Congress by
the president.
The country is divided into judicial districts, each of
which
has a superior court of three or more judges. District
superior
courts supervise the lower municipal, circuit, juvenile,
and
specialized courts. The lower courts are distributed on a
departmental basis. At the lower levels, the court system
still
tended to be overburdened and slow in the late 1980s;
juries were
used infrequently. The Constitution also establishes one
administrative court for each department to hear
complaints brought
by individuals against officials of the executive branch
and the
public service. These courts are part of an administrative
hierarchy headed by the Council of State.
Public Ministry attorneys have the same rank, receive
the same
compensation, and must have the same qualifications as the
magistrates before whom they practice. Although not
formally part
of the judiciary, Public Ministry officials are empowered
to
enforce the execution of laws, judicial decisions, and
administrative orders. The attorney general selects lower
court
prosecuting attorneys from lists of nominees prepared by
the
prosecuting attorneys of the district superior courts. The
president selects the latter attorneys from a list
submitted by the
attorney general.
By the late 1980s, a loose coalition of about twenty
Medellínbased cocaine-trafficking families or syndicates, known
collectively as the Medellín Cartel, had demoralized
Colombia's
judicial sector with narcotics-related corruption and had
virtually
paralyzed it with a campaign of terrorism and intimidation
(see Internal Security Problems
, ch. 5). Operating with
considerable
impunity, the Colombian drug barons arranged for the
murders of
more than fifty magistrates, including a dozen Supreme
Court
judges, between 1981 and 1988. The Extraditables (Los
Extraditables), the name adopted by the cartel drug lords,
also
financed the assassination by hired killers
(sicarios) of
government judicial officials who favored compliance with
the
bilateral Extradition Treaty Between Colombia and the
United
States, signed by both countries in 1979. The drug
traffickers
feared extradition to the United States, where they were
more
likely to be convicted. Their victims included Justice
Minister
Rodrigo Lara Bonilla, assassinated on April 30, 1984; Lara
Bonilla's successor as justice minister and ambassador to
Hungary
Enrique Parejo González, seriously wounded in an
assassination
attempt in Budapest in December 1986; and Attorney General
Carlos
Mauro Hoyos Jiménez, assassinated in Medellín on January
25, 1988.
On December 12, 1986, the Plenary Committee of the
Supreme
Court ruled unconstitutional Law 27 of 1980, which
approved the
already ratified 1979 extradition treaty between Colombia
and the
United States. The ruling broke with a seventy-year
majority
opinion that a law approving an international treaty could
not be
subjected to constitutional revision. Other judicial
decisions
favorable to the cartel--such as the release from jail in
1987 of
Jorge Luis Ochoa Vásquez and Gilberto Rodríguez Orejuela,
two
leading cocaine traffickers--suggested that the drug
dealers had
succeeded in either bribing or intimidating many key
judges, from
the Supreme Court down to the local tribunals. Indeed, a
document
found in an army search in Medellín in January 1988
revealed that
since early 1986 bribes of over US$1 million had been paid
to
officials of the foreign affairs and justice ministries
(including
judges), to the military, and to politicians to guarantee
Ochoa's
freedom. In a further concession to terrorism, the Supreme
Court in
June 1987 declared that Decree 750 of 1987 was
unconstitutional.
That decree had created the three-member Special Tribunal
of
Criminal Proceedings (Tribunal Especial de Instrucción
Criminal)
for the purpose of investigating politically significant
assassinations causing social unrest or trauma. To fill
the
resulting gap, the Barco government turned to a small
cadre of
"specialized judges" that was established in 1984 to deal
with
terrorist crimes, including kidnaping, with the support of
forensic
experts of the Directorate of the Judicial Police and
Investigation, commonly referred to as the Judicial Police
(see The National Police and Law Enforcement Authorities
, ch. 5).
Data as of December 1988
|