The lawsuit argued that just as the Indians and the limited physical and sensory, conscientious objectors have specific conditions that must be respected by the legal system, explains Natalia Ramirez, legal adviser of the G-DIP.
"In particular, the right not to act against their moral, religious or political deeper exercise of the constitutional right to freedom of conscience, which is not regulated in the law suit (Article 27 of Act 48 of 1993 ), "says Ramirez.
Although the Constitutional Court dismissed the charge on legislative omission on which it was alleged in the lawsuit, he acknowledged, changing its earlier position that the right to conscientious objection to compulsory military service derives directly from the fundamental right to freedom of conscience.
The Constitutional Court president, Judge Nilson Pinilla, stated that "if any person for philosophical reasons, for ethical reasons, for religious reasons, proves that their conscience does not let you carry arms, can be excluded from service."
According to the press release issued by the Constitutional Court, this Court held that "taking into account the fundamental nature of the right to conscientious objection, immediately, it could be enforced through the exercise of guardianship action, even against the duty to perform compulsory military service. "
Likewise, in the statement is a call to Congress that, in light of the considerations of the sentence governs the subject through a statute.
This ruling is an important step in consolidating the rule of law and another form of recognition of the right to "difference," concludes Ramirez.
Taken from the site of the Universidad de los Andes
RSS 2.0