Anterior 8 / 65 Próximo

Política y en los artículos 33 y siguientes del Decreto 2591 de 1991, ha proferido la siguiente SENTENCIA Dentro del proceso de revisión de la providencia adoptada el 18 de octubre de 2012, por el Juzgado Sexto Penal del Circuito de Conocimiento de Medellín. La tutela fue seleccionada y repartida al Magistrado Ponente mediante Auto de 28 de febrero de 2013, proferido por la Sala de Selección de Tutelas número Dos, conformada por los Magistrados María Victoria Calle Correa y Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez. I. ANTECEDENTES El 8 de octubre de 2012, el Juzgado Sexto Penal del Circuito con funciones de conocimiento de Medellín, admitió la acción de tutela que presentara la ciudadana Leidys Emilsen Mena Valderrama contra el Instituto de Crédito Educativo y Estudios Técnicos en el Exterior, en

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

● ● ●

Mena v. ICETEX

Case Law

Country

Colombia

Country Location

Latitud: 3.0016069525797207

Longitud: -73.96890197152884

Country Location (vinculado Case Law): Colombia

Decision Date: 27 jun 2013

Case Status: Cerrado

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Reversed Lower Court

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction or Order Granted

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Discrimination
Freedom of Association and Assembly / Protests
Privacy
Racism

Judicial Body: Constitutional Court

Court Name: Constitutional Court of Colombia

Case Number: T-366/13

Case Summary: The Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled that a state agency had violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights by denying her access to their offices because she had previously participated in a peaceful protest in front of their building. The petitioner claimed that she was not allowed to enter the building out of racial discrimination, due to her Afrocolombian origins. The Court found that the agency, rather than the building’s management as asserted, had collected personal data on the petitioner after she participated in the protests. This violated the petitioner’s habeas data and equality because she was neither informed of the real reason why she was denied access to the building nor of the existence of “negative data” as a result of her participation in the protest. In the opinion of the Court, the situation was further aggravated because the petitioner was also prevented from conducting legitimate business at the public agency. For all these reasons, the Court decided to protect the petitioner’s fundamental rights and ordered the agency to publicly apologize for its inappropriate conduct, to post a copy of its apology in “a place that could be easily accessed by the public,” to remove from its databases the negative information on the petitioner, and finally, to refrain from carrying out similar practices in the future.

Case Significance: The decision expands the right to freedom of expression and particularly the right to protest because it meets international standards and introduces fundamental rules on the misuse of the personal data collected during a protest.

The ruling has valuable considerations on the right to protest, habeas data and equality. It is worth highlighting that the ruling allowed the activist, an activist for the human rights of Afro-descendant communities, to continue her social programs and research in this field. In addition, the admonishment to the public entity to refrain from discriminatory behavior is considered an important precedent.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Related Law

Constitución

Source Name and URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 12 nov 2024

Documentos primarios

Decision (in Spanish).pdf
Spanish
Descargar Ver

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

Mena v. ICETEX

Documentos primarios

Notificaciones