Previous 6 / 77 Next

9/1/24, 12:58 T-372-23 Corte Constitucional de Colombia (http://www.histats.com/viewstats/?sid=1206326&ccid=605) 9. Al día siguiente, es decir, el 6 de mayo de 2021, el MinTic emitió un nuevo comunicado en el que, de acuerdo con el reporte de 24 proveedores de servicios de telefonía de internet, indicó: “[s]e mantiene la falla de banda ancha principal que afecta a 6.699 accesos fijos y 5.700 líneas telefónicas en Cali. En horas de la mañana de este jueves, 6 de mayo, el operador intentó desplazarse a la zona para efectuar reparaciones, pero reporta que no fue posible acceder al punto de la falla. En esa misma ciudad se presentó una contingencia en uno de los nodos de la empresa Cable & Wireless que presta el servicio de red de transporte. La falla, reportada desde las 8 p. m. del miércoles 5 de mayo, afectó el servicio de voz en las comunas 10, 11, 12, 15, 19 y 20. Este incidente ocurrió por ausencia de electricidad en este nodo de transmisión, porque se encuentra ubicado cerca de una bomba de gasolina que fue objeto de acciones vandálicas y la electrificadora desconectó el suministro por razones de seguridad. Por lo demás, en la capital del Valle no se registran fallas en la red móvil ni afectaciones adicionales a la red fija. Los operadores reportan que el difícil ac‐ ceso de las cuadrillas de reparación retrasa la gestión habitual de resolución de averías en Cali, así como en algunas zonas de Cundinamarca y en otras regiones del país. Esto hace que aumente el nivel de averías vigentes en el compilado nacional. Así mismo, se han identificado problemas de acceso para tareas de operación y mantenimiento en algunos municipios de los departamentos de Caquetá, Cauca, Huila, Nariño y Valle del Cauca. En el resto del territorio nacional no se reportan eventos de afectación significativa del [10] servicio” . 10. Los actores afirmaron que el Ejército Nacional tiene equipos inhibidores de señal celu‐ lar, como se ve reflejado en: “el contrato de suministro No. 217-CENACINTELIGENCIA-2019, celebrado entre el M.D.N. - EJÉRCITO NACIONAL - CENAC INTELIGENCIA Y SEINCO INGENIE‐ RIA S A S (anexo 1) y en el estudio previo para el proceso de selección abreviada de me‐ nor cuantía No. 216- CENACINTELIGENCIA-2019 cuyo objeto es ‘ADQUISICION [11] DE EQUIPOS CON DESTINO AL CACIM’ (anexo 2)” . https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/Relatoria/2023/T-372-23.htm 6/77

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Bejarano v. Ministry of Defense

Case Law

Country

Colombia

Country Location

Latitude: 3.0016069525797207

Longitude: -73.96890197152884

Country Location (linked Case Law): Colombia

Decision Date: 20 de set. de 2023

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Administrative Measures/Administrative Sanctions that restrict FoE
Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional
Order to Update

Keywords

Content Regulation / Censorship
Digital Rights
Freedom of Association and Assembly / Protests
Public Officials
Public Order

Judicial Body: Constitutional Court

Court Name: The Eighth Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Colombia

Case Number: T-372/2023

Case Summary: The Eighth Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Colombia held that the government violated the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly by failing to provide the petitioners with timely, truthful, and complete information about the interruptions of internet service—and the use of signal jammers—during public protests which occurred in Cali, Colombia during April and May 2021. The petitioners, members of civil society, alleged that during the protests, internet service was interrupted and the cell phone signal was cut, violating their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. In addition, the petitioners argued that the Police and the Army had signal-jamming equipment, and recalled the testimony of journalists, who stated that they lost signal as they approached a law enforcement vehicle, and got it back when they moved away from the car. For its part, the government held that the interruption of the aforementioned services was due to technical problems and acts of vandalism and terrorism by protesters. The Court held that there was insufficient evidence to confirm that the State was responsible for the internet shutdowns. Furthermore, the Court explained that the mere existence of State contracts to acquire technology to inhibit cell phone signals did not prove that authorities were responsible for the lack of internet connection during the protests. However, the Court considered that the government must investigate and communicate promptly, with a high level of transparency, the causes, timeframes, and places where the interruption of internet services occurred. Hence, by failing to do so before, the Court concluded that the government violated the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association because it did not provide the plaintiffs with accurate and complete information about the interruptions of internet services, and the use of signal inhibitors, in the context of the 2021 protests in Cali. Finally, the Court ordered the Ministry of Information and Communications Technologies, the National Spectrum Agency, and the Ministry of Defense to respond publicly on these pending matters.

Case Significance: Expands Expression The Constitutional Court strengthened and updated the rules regarding internet interruptions, the importance of ensuring connectivity in social protests, and access to information in these contexts. In this sense, the Court argued that States must guarantee access to public information and the provision of internet services without interference, especially during public demonstrations, and that it must provide clear and timely technical information when shutdown complaints are filed. Even though the Court did not find evidence to attribute the interruptions to the government directly, it also held public authorities responsible for not providing adequate information about what happened to the internet and cell phone signals during the demonstrations in Cali in April and May 2021.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Bejarano v. Ministry of Defense

Related Law

Constitución

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT
Columbia

Date Updated: 31 de jan. de 2024

Primary Documents

Bejarano v. Ministry of Defense .pdf
Spanish
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Bejarano v. Ministry of Defense

Primary Documents

Notifications