Judgment T-930A/13

ACTION TO PROTECT AGAINST JUDGMENT PROVIDINGS-General Proceedings

ACTION TO PROTECT AGAINST JUDGMENTSHIP PROVIDENCES-Exceptional Provenance for the

Protection of Fundamental Rights

ACTION TO PROTECT AGAINST JUDGMENT PROVIDERS-General and special procedural

requirements

FAULT - Violation due to erroneous assessment of the evidence or unjustifiably excluding it from
assessment/fault effect due to improper assessment of the evidence - Probationary
valuation/configuration

The very exceptional and restricted intervention of the guardianship judge in evidentiary matters
of the proceedings before other jurisdictions can only be aimed at guaranteeing and/or restoring
the fundamental constitutional rights that have been transgressionally violated in the respective
proceedings and where there is no mechanism of correction. From the parameters of the Political
Constitution, it is imperative that the judicial branch properly and timely fulfill its function of
resolving conflicts, always in a fair manner and, in this way, the factual defect does not point to
another evaluation of the evidence, nor to questioning its power of conviction, but rather to the
fact that in its practice, argument and estimation has been made with full respect for the
fundamental rights of the participants.

PROOF VALUE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS-Judge is obliged to assess within the evidentiary set,
following the rules of sound criticism/documental TEST-Proof value of the photographs

Photography is a documentary means of proof of a representative nature, which shows a fact

other than the photograph itself, which emerges from the document without the need for an
exhaustive interpretation of its content. This means that "the representation must be immediate,
because if at first glance the photograph shows a variety of possible facts,' it will be part of the
evidence, since it is contained in the mind of that person (the interpreter), and not in the object
that documents it'", warning in this same judgment T-269 of 2012 that "the Judge must use other
evidentiary means, reasonably appreciating the whole", as provided for in Like another document
and expert opinion, photography is a medium that the judge is obliged to evaluate within the
evidentiary set, following the rules of sound criticism. As it is a document, it will be determined
whether it is private or has the connotations to be assumed as a public document and its
authenticity and genuineness will be verified, in accordance with the corresponding requirement.
The probative value of the photographs depends not only on their formal authenticity, but also on
the possibility of establishing whether the image represents the reality of the facts that are
inferred or attributed, and not other different ones, possibly varied by time, place or change of
position, which, as indicated, obliges the judge to use other evidentiary means and to reasonably
appreciate the whole.

ACTION TO PROTECT AGAINST JUDGMENT PROVIDING AGAINST JUDGMENTS FOR FAULT

DEFAULT-Improcedence inasmuch as it was carried out by the judges appropriate evidentiary
assessment that included photographs within the direct reparation process

Article no.: File T-4010962

Action of guardianship instituted by Ana Mara Mendoza Prez and others, against the
Administrative Tribunal of Arauca and another

Provenance: Council of State, Administrative Litigation Chamber, Fourth Section

Judge-Rapporteur:

NILSON PINILLA PINILLA PINILLA PINILLA

Bogot, D. C., six (6) December, two thousand and thirteen (2013)

The Sixth Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court, composed of Judges Nilson Pinilla Pinilla,
Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub and Alberto Rojas Ros, in the exercise of their constitutional and
legal powers, has delivered the following

SENTENCE
In the review of the judgement of second instance issued by the Fourth Section of the
Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Council of State, within the action of protection filed
by Ana Mara Mendoza Prez and others[1], against the Administrative Tribunal of Arauca and the
2nd Administrative Court of the Circuit of Arauca.

The case was referred to the Constitutional Court by the corporation's referral, pursuant to article
32 of Decree 2591 of 1991; on August 15,2013, the Eighth Selection Chamber elected him to
review.

I. BACKGROUND.

Ana Mara Mendoza Prez and her children Ivn Daro and Diego Armando Len Mendoza (only
they granted power), initiated a guardianship action, by proxy, on September 10,2012, against the
2nd Administrative Court of the Circuit of Arauca and the Administrative Tribunal of the
corresponding Judicial District, considering that when deciding the action for direct reparation
within the process filed with No. 81-001-33-31-002-2007-000048