Practice Relating to Rule 161. International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings
In 2006, in the Constitutional Case No. C-370/06, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
The human rights and international humanitarian law treaties do not specifically recognize the rights to peace, truth, justice and reparation. But they do refer to … States’ obligation to cooperate in the prevention and punishment of international crimes and serious violations of human rights.
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case C-095/07
, the Criminal Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated that “various treaties on human rights and international humanitarian law mention … the obligation of States to cooperate in the prevention and punishment of international crimes and serious violations of human rights, and in restoring victims’ rights.”
(footnote in original omitted)
In 2010, in the Constitutional Case No. C-936/10, Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
International obligations for the effective prosecution and punishment of certain particularly serious crimes – which are provided for under instruments of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law ratified by Colombia – constitute standards for the control of constitutionality [in Colombia] …
Such international standards involve the protection of victims’ rights which are related to: … (iv) States’ obligation to cooperate in the prevention and punishment of international crimes and serious human rights violations.
Colombia’s Criminal Procedure Code (2004) states: “Extradition may be requested, conceded or offered in accordance with the public treaties and, failing this, with the law.”
In 2009, in the Constitutional Case No. C-240/09, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court was called upon to decide on the constitutionality of article 14 of the Law on Judicial Cooperation (1997) and article 162 of the Penal Code (2000), which concern the recruitment of children and their forced participation in hostilities. The Court stated:
4.2.3. … [I]t can be concluded that in accordance with the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their  Additional Protocols ratified by Colombia, the recruitment of children below 15 years of age and their participation in armed conflict is a conduct prohibited by IHL.
The States Parties, in light of the above, assume the commitment to take all legislative measures as necessary to punish those persons responsible for grave breaches of these Conventions. Additionally, States have the obligation to prosecute those persons suspected of committing grave breaches of these treaties or to transfer them to be prosecuted in another State. In other words, the perpetrators of grave breaches – war criminals – must always be prosecuted, and this responsibility falls to the States.
[footnotes in original omitted; emphasis in original]
Colombia’s Criminal Procedure Code (2004) states:
Extradition may be requested, conceded or offered in accordance with the public treaties and, failing this, with the law.
Moreover, the extradition of Colombians who are nationals by birth must be conceded for crimes committed abroad and considered as crimes under Colombian criminal legislation.
The extradition of Colombians who are nationals by birth must not proceed for acts committed before 17 December 1997.
The Code also states:
Conditions for offering or conceding [extradition]. The government may make the offer of or grant extradition subject to conditions which it considers opportune. In any case it must require that the person requested to be extradited will not be tried for a crime different from the one for which extradition was sought and will not be submitted to sanctions that differ from those imposed on him or her by the sentence.
If under the legislation of the state requesting the extradition, the crime which prompts the extradition is punished with the death penalty, the person sought may only be handed over under the condition that the death sentence be commuted and under the condition that the person to be extradited will not be subjected to enforced disappearance, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor to forced exile, indefinite imprisonment or confiscation.
[emphasis in original]
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) provides: “Extradition proceedings will not be taken with regard to political offences.”
Colombia’s Criminal Procedure Code (2004) states: “Extradition must not proceed for political crimes.”
In 2008, in the Constitutional Case No. C-1156/08, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court was called upon to decide on the constitutionality of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court and of the corresponding domestic law approving it. The Court stated:
The privileges and immunities granted to the International Criminal Court as an institution and to its personnel, pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement [on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court], are in conformity with the  Constitution inasmuch as it aims to give all guarantees needed for them to develop their functions with independence and neutrality …
Entitlements that are indispensable conditions to allow this high Court to freely meet its objectives without any interference from the countries in which it has to work. The privileges, immunities and benefits granted seek to facilitate the exercise of its activities and the good functioning, efficiency and autonomy of the institution to achieve its objectives.
It is crucial for the ICC and its personnel to have the indispensable guarantees of protection to be able to perform their functions outside of the seat of the Court. …
Therefore, considering the importance of these benefits for the performance of the work of the Court and in light of the principle of cooperation of States Parties with the International Criminal Court (preamble and articles 86 and 87 of the [1998 ICC Statute]), it is possible to conclude that the Agreement is in conformity with the concept of national sovereignty and with the principles of international law accepted by Colombia.
In 2009, in the Constitutional Case No. C-801/09, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court was called upon to decide on the constitutionality of the 2002 ICC Elements of Crimes, the 2002 ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and the corresponding domestic law approving them. Regarding the cooperation of States Parties with the ICC, the Court stated:
The activities undertaken by national tribunals at the request of the International Criminal Court, within the scope of the international cooperation provided for under the  Rome Statute (articles 88, 89 and 103), must be regulated according to domestic procedures. Therefore, States Parties, such as Colombia, have the duty to adjust their internal procedures to the requirements of this cooperation.
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Colombia stated: “We encourage the international community to cooperate more actively with the [ICTY] so that it can accomplish its task of bringing to justice those who committed atrocities during the war in the former Yugoslavia.”