Diferencias entre las reglas de exclusión probatoria colombiana e internacional penal: Análisis en tres casos de injerencias en comunicaciones privadas

Abstract

When studying the rule or clause of evidentiary exclusion within the Colombian domestic law, it is understood that the general rule is the prohibition of adducing evidence that is the result of arbitrary interference with the privacy of individuals; by exception, these can only be practiced after a court order, under penalty of the results being excluded from the process. However, in practice there are cases that present a different development from what national legislation and jurisprudence have been proposing, and this will be illustrated through three reference cases. In contrast, the exclusionary rule has been treated differently in the light of international law, mainly international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law. Thus, the approach and main object of this work focuses on the following question: what are the differences between national law and international law on the rule of exclusion? The search for an answer requires reviewing the consistency of the position of the Constitutional Court when it affirms that the rule contained in the Rome Statute is comparable to the rule of national exclusion, according to Judgment C-578 of 2002.