La vulneración del principio de confianza legitima en la responsabilidad patrimonial del estado por la privación injusta de la libertad en Colombia ante la variación del precedente jurisprudencial

Abstract

The State, according to its organization and structure, is in charge of administering and governing through a group of organs and entities the operation of the public power of a nation that act along with certain principles, laws and norms, through state organs that exercise the national public power for the administration of justice, which in the Republic of Colombia are: the legislative power, the executive power and the judiciary; so it is directly responsible for the important and primary responsibility of repairing the damages for the lawful and unlawful acts caused by its organs, currently seen and developed from the Constitutional foundation of Article 90 of the 1991 Political Constitution of Colombia.

It is considered that there is an unjust deprivation of liberty when the liberty of a person is restricted in a criminal proceeding carried out by the competent authorities following the procedures established by law, and, nevertheless, the criminal investigation is developed timely, at the end of the process, it concludes with an acquittal.

The violation of the principle of legitimate expectations has come to be presented in cases of unjust deprivation of liberty in front of the contentious-administrative procedure via direct reparation, where the client expected that his claims would be favorably dispatched with the argument of the judicial precedent in force at the moment of filing your claim, but it changes and that in the sentence and within the judicial process is not taken into account, which is detrimental to the rights requested by the plaintiff. Concerning the above, the State must provide mechanisms that allow the administrator to have a period of adjustments in the face of the new situation, therefore, if this had not been done, the affected party would have the opportunity to appeal to the contentious administrative jurisdiction this decision. Such comparison allows us to glimpse the specific nature of the principle of legitimate expectations since it is noted that each application case has its circumstances and its respective frameworks of action.