Bayefsky.com

The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Jurisprudence

CCPR - Colombia

List of all admissibility decisions

Case Name Comm Number Date Outcome
A.Z. v. Colombia 244/1987 03 November 1989 Inadmissible
E.P. et al. v. Colombia 318/1988 25 July 1990 Inadmissible
E.M. v. Colombia 214/1986 21 March 1991 Admissible
O.H.C. v. Colombia 287/1988 01 November 1991 Inadmissible
Fei v. Colombia 514/1992 18 March 1994 Admissible
Arhuaco v. Colombia 612/1995 14 March 1996 Admissible
A.A.G. v. Colombia 697/1996 18 March 1998 Admissible
Aponte Guzmán v. Colombia 697/1996 05 July 2004 Inadmissible
Castro v. Colombia 1103/2002 28 October 2005 Inadmissible
Arboleda v. Colombia 1120/2002 25 July 2006 Inadmissible
Gaviria Lucas v. Colombia 1541/2007 27 October 2009 Inadmissible
Manzano et al. v. Colombia 1616/2007 19 March 2010 Inadmissible
R. A. D. B. v. Colombia 1800/2008 31 October 2011 Inadmissible
J. B. R. et al. v. Colombia 1822-1826/2008 23 July 2012 Inadmissible
D.T.T. v. Colombia 1904/2009 25 March 2013 Inadmissible
C.L.C.D., V.F.C. and A.F.C. v. Colombia 2399/2014 30 March 2016 Inadmissible
F. A. H. v. Colombia 2121/2011 28 March 2017 Inadmissible

Information in this section of Bayefsky.com is as of May 2018. To update use the UN website search engine here.

CERD, CCPR, CESCR, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CMW, CRPD and CED all have optional complaint mechanisms, whereby an individual may complain to the respective treaty body that his or her rights under the treaty have been violated. The CMW complaint mechanism is not yet in force.

Included in this section are:

  1. requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
  2. decisions to deal jointly with cases
  3. admissibility decisions (normally decisions determining a complaint is admissible are not issued separately and hence this category involves decisions in which complaints are found to be inadmissible)
  4. final views.

Information on follow-up of final Views where a violation has been found is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".