3.3. Action for constitutional protection against the then-President of the Republic. Constitutional Court Judgment T-1062/05 241. On March 5, 2005, Soraya Gutiérrez Argüello, legal representative of CCAJAR, filed an action for constitutional protection against then-president Álvaro Uribe Vélez in response to public statements made against the organization. The purpose of the Collective's petition was to request protection for the fundamental rights to life, physical integrity, equality, freedom of expression and opinion, honor and reputation, petition, and defense of the members of the Collective, as well as that the president be ordered publicly to rectify the statements mentioned in the suit (see supra, pars. 141 and 143).462 The Constitutional Court of Colombia took up the action for protection under appeal.463 242. The legal counsel of the president of the Republic presented her response to the suit. She said that the quotations mentioned by the respondent institution, ascribed to the speech of the President of the Republic were not true, as they did not appear in that speech but in comments thereon published in the newspaper El Tiempo.464 She added that in relation to communications written by groups operating outside the law, she could not say if they were true and that they did not prove anything at all, other than the fact that those statements could not be attributed to the President.465 She argued that the President could not be held responsible for the exercise of freedom of expression by individuals who used electronic media to opine about a publicly known organization.466 243. Furthermore, she added that the accusations of persecution by the DAS referred to third parties and, therefore, could not be attributed to the President of the Republic.467 She added that the President was not responsible for information posted on the website of the National Narcotics Control Bureau (DNE). As for the other accusations, she said that she had no record of them and that she would confine herself to what was proven.468 244. On April 1, 2005, the Sectional Council of the Judiciary of Cundinamarca denied the action for protection filed by the Collective.469 The Sectional Council found that, after reviewing the texts forwarded by the plaintiff, there was no evidence in the speeches of September 8, 2003, and February 10, 2004, given before the High Command of the Armed Forces of Colombia and the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, that the president was referring specifically to CCAJAR or one of its members as a mouthpiece of terrorists or guerillas.470 The Council held that the then-President referred to "some" human rights organizations that, in their capacity as such, could lawfully defend those persons.471 245. The Sectional Council specifically stated that the president's statements had also not violated the right to life and physical integrity of the members of the lawyers' collective, "since there have been no mortal or wounded victims belonging to the entity seeking protection as a result of his alleged statements.”472 Finally, the Sectional Council urged the president of the Republic to present to the domestic and international community in a considered, measured, and objective way the reality of the useful and essential task that organizations that defend human rights in Colombia perform.473 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 464 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 465 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 466 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 467 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 468 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 469 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 470 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 471 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 472 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 473 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 462 463 47