Assistance of the legal clinic of public interest of the latin american autonomous university (unaula) in favor of the plaintiff in a process of direct repair by feminicide
Keywords:
assistance, feminicide, woman, minorAbstract
In the brief, the third cohort of the Legal Clinic of Public Interest UNAULA broadly shares the assistance in favor of the plaintiff in a process of direct reparation following the commission of a feminicide in the Municipality of Venecia, in the department of Antioquia. The collaboration is made up of legal bases for the recognition of the pretensions of the victims of feminicide, arguments so that the decision in the reference process is taken with a gender approach; the reasons for incorporating protection for women in international law and the responsibility of the authorities demanded by the omission of several of these binding provisions, the responsibility for the special protection due to the children of the victim of feminicide as under age and family members, the analysis of the imputation judgment of state responsibility for omission, the omission of the public authorities for the non-imposition of protection measures with a gender focus and for the non-application of catch in flagrancy, the state omission for non-referral of a record of a crime to be investigated by the Office of the Prosecutor, and a critical reflection of those omissions in relation to the only state intervention. Finally, is exposed the outcome that the assistance had inside the judicial process because of the nature of the means of contentious control that was used.
References
Abramovich, V. (2010). Responsabilidad estatal por violencia de género: comentarios sobre el caso “Campo Algodonero” en la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Anuario de Derechos Humanos, (6), 167-182.
Acceso a la justicia para las mujeres víctimas de violencia en las Américas (1997). Recuperado de http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/mujeres/actividades/justicia.asp
Acero, A. (2010). Aproximaciones a los conceptos de femicidio, feminicidio y homicidio en mujeres. Bases para su medición. Boletín Epidemiológico, 1(1), 1-23.
Bolívar, H., Jaramillo, L., Salcedo, D., Vásquez, J., y Villada, D. (2014). Género y gestión de riesgos: una propuesta desde la experiencia clínica en la coadyuvancia de la acción popular de la microcuenca La Picacha de Medellín. Ratio Juris, 9(19), 97-125.
Caso Maria Da Penha vs. Brasil (2001). Recuperado de http://www.cidh.oas.org/women/Brasil12.051.htm
Chávez, J. (2004). Perspectiva de género. México: Plaza y Valdés.
Constitución Política de Colombia (1991). Recuperada de http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/inicio/Constitucion%20politica%20de%20Colombia%20-%202015.pdf
Convención Interamericana para prevenir, sancionar y erradicar la violencia contra la mujer “Convención de Belém Do Pará” (1994). Recuperado de http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/tratados/a-61.htm
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso Velásquez Rodríguez vs. Honduras (1988). Recuperado de http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_04_esp.pdf
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso Almonacid Arellano vs. Chile (2006). Recuperado de http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_154_esp.pdf
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso de la masacre Pueblo Bello vs. Colombia (2006). Recuperado de http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_140_esp.pdf
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso Valle Jaramillo y otros vs. Colombia (2008). Recuperado de http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_192_esp.pdf
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso González y otras (“Campo Algodonero”) vs. México (2009). Recuperado de http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_205_esp.pdf
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso Gelman vs. Uruguay (2011). Recuperado de http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_221_esp1.pdf
Declaración sobre la eliminación de la violencia contra la mujer (1993). Recuperado de http://www.ohchr.org/SP/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ViolenceAgainstWomen.aspx
Jiménez, F. (2011). La responsabilidad directa por omisión del estado más allá de la diligencia debida. Reflexiones a raíz de los crímenes “feminicidas” de ciudad Juárez. Revista Española de Derecho Internacional, LXIII, 11-50.
Legarde, M. (2008). Antropología, feminismo y política: violencia feminicida y derechos humanos de las mujeres. En: M. Bullen y C. Diez (Coords.). Retos teóricos y nuevas prácticas (pp. 209-239). Madrid: Ankulegi Antropologia Elkartea.
Palacio, J. A. (2013). Derecho procesal administrativo. Medellín: Librería Jurídica Sánchez.
Corte Constitucional
CCons, C-225/1995.
CCons, T-1319/2001.
CCons, C-862/2008.
CCons, T-967/2014.
Consejo de Estado
CE, 18878/2011, O. Valle de De la Hoz.
CE, 20497/2012, O. Valle de De la Hoz.
CE, 28857/2014, O. Valle de De la Hoz.
CE, 29419/2014, J. O. Santofimio.
CE, 40411/2014, R. Pazos.
Leyes y decretos
L. 294/1996.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authorship of scientific works
In order to establish the authorship of the scientific works, the Universidad Autónoma Latinoamericana considers that within its publications it is understood as an author:
- Who participated in the formulation of the problem and the hypothesis.
- Who conceptualized, created, designed, studied, reviewed, analyzed or interpreted the data.
- Who participated in the creative elaboration or the manuscript, or edition of the statistical analysis.
- Who played a leading role in the final version of the work or wrote a portion of the text.
- Who participated in the interpretation of the results.
- Who is the principal investigator of the research project and has generated the central idea of the entire manuscript.
- Who has the ability to explain and defend portions of work or study in public or academic places" (CNRSI, 2008).
- Who is a co-author in the work for having participated in any of the stages of the research in any of the previous items (Official Journal of the European Union, 2005) [1]
[1] Law 93 of 1998, judgment C-1023/12 of the Colombian Constitutional Court- 14. At first, the judgment in question carried out a complete study on the constitutional protection of copyright, based on its consecration in article 61 Political Constitution of Colombia 1991 Thus, it established the following rules in this regard:
14.1. From the national and international regulations on the subject, it is concluded that the legal protection of copyright falls on all those creations of the spirit, in the scientific, literary or artistic field, whatever the genre, form of expression, and regardless of the literary or artistic merit, or its destination. Within this protection, and in the aforementioned terms, books, brochures and other writings are included, without excluding any species. 14.2. Copyright contains two types of prerogatives: moral rights, which are related to the faculty of the creator, as a natural person, so that his work is known and maintains its integrity and ownership, so they are personal, extra-patrimonial, imprescriptible, inalienable, and inalienable. Moral rights, in this sense, deal with (i) the right to disclose the work; (ii) the right to recognition of intellectual paternity; (iii) the right to respect and integrity of the work, preventing unauthorized modifications to it; and (iv) the right of withdrawal, which allows the author to withdraw it from the trade.
On the other hand, the author's economic rights have, as its name implies, economic content and are concentrated in the payment to the creator or the natural or legal person who owns the rights for those activities that involve the exploitation of the protected work. Among the variables of these faculties are (i) the right of material reproduction; (ii) the right of non-material public communication, representation, public execution and broadcasting; and (iii) the transformation, translation, adaptation and musical arrangement, as well as any other form of use of the work. Intellectual property rights. Employers and / or funders must ensure that researchers benefit, at any stage of their careers, from the possible exploitation of their R&D results through adequate legal protection, especially in the area of intellectual property rights protection and of copyright. Policies and practices should specify the rights that correspond to researchers and / or, where appropriate, their employers or other interested parties, including external commercial or industrial entities, as envisaged possibly under specific collaboration agreements or other types agree. Co-authorship. When evaluating staff, institutions should positively value co-authorship as it demonstrates a constructive approach to research practice. Therefore, employers and / or funders must develop strategies, practices and procedures that offer researchers, including those who are at the beginning of their careers, the necessary conditions so that they can enjoy the right to be recognized, mentioned and / or cited, within their actual contributions, as co-authors of reports, patents, etc. or publish the results of their own research, independently of their supervisors ("The Commission of the European Communities", 2005).
