The National Commission for Judicial Discipline (CNDJ) has declared a magistrate in the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Medellín disciplinary responsibility for making, in the mode of serious negligence, in the prohibition of delay or unjustifiably refusing to dispatch the matter or disposition of the service he is required. In the process, it was proven that the official took more than eight years to give a second instance sentence and for this offense he was sanctioned with the suspension of the exercise of the position for a month.
The high court explained that, according to article 360 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the term for the magistrate to record the draft sentence begins the day after the expiration of the term to present the summaries, or the day of the hearing. ; Therefore, once the above procedure has been carried out, a judicial delay is noted in the issuance of the judgment in the venue of the second instance.
On the other hand, as the basis of his defense, the person concerned emphasized the absence of disciplinary responsibility due to the high judicial congestion, the ineffective decongestion measures, the inequitable distribution, and her role as the head of the family. and the domestic calamities in his health and in his family, all these things in his opinion would demonstrate the justification of his behavior, the situation for which the high court does not have enough entities to accept such a position, since the elements of irresistibility and The necessary unforeseeables have not been accredited to prove the cause for the exclusion of liability due to force majeure or fortuitous events.
Finally, the Commission argued that it is not sympathetic that a judicial official delays almost a decade in resolving a process in the seat of second instance and enters the lack of control in the known process that leads precisely to its extension, when say The problem is of a medium-high complexity, which corresponds to the ordinary and daily course of the processes that occur in this example.