Norma relacionada
Colombia
Practice Relating to Rule 100. Fair Trial Guarantees
Section D. Information on the nature and cause of the accusation
Colombia’s Criminal Procedure Code (2004) states:
In the course of criminal proceedings, once a person has been charged with an offence, he or she has the right … :
h) to be informed about the charges against him or her in an understandable way and expressly indicating the way the acts underlying the charge were carried out as well as the time and place of the acts underlying the charge. 
Colombia, Criminal Procedure Code, 2004, Article 8(h).
In 2005, in the Constitutional Case No. C-203/05, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
Criminal prosecutions of minors must strictly comply with the minimum constitutional and international norms found in (i) Article 44 of the Constitution [and] (ii) the Beijing Rules or “the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice” … They all include standards that must be complied with as part of the Colombian domestic legal framework, as expressly stated in Article 44 of the Constitution according to which children are entitled to the totality of rights found in international instruments. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-203/05, Judgment, 8 March 2005, § 4.6.2; see also § 4.2.5.
The Court also found:
Rule 7.1 [of the “Beijing Rules”] provides a list of minimum procedural guarantees to be respected in all cases involving the prosecution of minors for violating criminal law: “Basic procedural safeguards such as … the right to be notified of the charges … shall be guaranteed at all stages of the proceedings”. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-203/05, Judgment, March 2005, § 4.2.5.1.7
In 2010, in the Plazas Vega case, Colombia’s Third Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bogotá stated:
Regarding the modification of the charge by the Prosecutor from co-perpetrator … to perpetrator-by-means, one could conceive the idea that this situation could entail a violation of the principle of consistency. However, this guarantee is not affected as long as this variation does not prejudice the situation of the defendant.
In that regard, the Supreme Court of Justice stated:
Within the framework of Law No. 600 of 2000, … consistency as a procedural guarantee … entails that the judgment must be in harmony with the indictment or document containing the charges with regard to personal, factual and legal aspects. … The personal and factual consistency is absolute, while the legal one is relative because the judge may convict the defendant of a punishable conduct different from the one for which he or she had been accused as long as this does not lead to a higher penalty for the defendant. 
Colombia, Third Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bogotá, Plazas Vega case, Judgment, 9 June 2010, p. 253.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court further stated:
The present investigation originated on 6 and 7 November 1985, when the … self-styled “Iván Marino Ospina” branch of the guerrilla movement calling itself “M-19 – 19 April Movement” violently occupied the Palace of Justice in the centre of Bogotá, in an “operation” paradoxically named “Antonio Nariño for human rights” with the aim of subjecting the then President of the Republic … to a political trial in light of the government’s alleged non-compliance with the peace agreements signed with the rebel group.
Moments after the start of the seizure [of the building], the Chief of Staff of the Thirteenth Brigade … activated the National Defence Plan “Tricolor 83” and the Brigade Operations Centre.
A tactical and intelligence operation was then carried out, directed and coordinated by the National Army and aimed at retaking the Palace of Justice and freeing the hostages …
… [T]he freed hostages were identified, questioned, listed and classified as follows: personnel not involved in the subversive operation; participants in the assault; and possible M-19 collaborators from inside the Palace of Justice …
In this way, members of the armed forces rescued from the Palace of Justice more than 200 people who, … in accordance with the recovery and rescue plan, were almost all moved to the Casa Museo del Florero and, after being identified, were released. However, 11 of the rescued persons have never been traced.
[I]t must be said that … at the time the events took place, the “secret” “special intelligence operations plan No. 002/80” was in full force. This plan was designed to “simultaneously identify, locate, capture and question M-19 members operating in the area under the jurisdiction of the BIM [Brigade XIII, of which the accused was a Colonel]” and assigned military targets belonging to this illegal armed group to the Cavalry School.
In view of the reprehensible actions of the members of the M-19 subversive group, who placed in danger the lives of the civilians who were inside the Palace, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the intervention of the public forces was imperative to re-establish the constitutional order that had been shattered. Likewise, it was legitimate for the military to work towards identifying and sorting the people who were evacuated from the conflict zone, and it was appropriate to use the Casa del Museo del 20 Julio as a command post for this work, in accordance with the operational manuals in force at the time. What, however, is inconceivable in a Social and Democratic State governed by the rule of law is that the authorities responsible for the security of their fellow citizens, for the maintenance of peaceful coexistence and fairness, act surreptitiously with total disregard for domestic and international norms related to the protection of human rights. 
Colombia, Third Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bogotá, Plazas Vega case, Judgment, 9 June 2010, pp. 1, 3, 5, 128 and 285–286.
[footnotes in original omitted]