Juan Antonio Matiz Monroy — Lawyer, Universidad de los Andes · Specialist in Criminal Law, Universidad Sergio Arboleda · Professional licence 294.746 (C.S.J.)
Something happened to you. From that moment the law recognises rights of your own inside the criminal proceeding: not those of someone who watches what the prosecution does, but those of someone who can ask for things and get an answer.
The commonest mistake is not hesitating over whether to report. It is reporting and then sitting down to wait, because no one explained what those rights are or what has to be done for them to be worth anything. They do not switch themselves on.
Three words order what follows. The report of the offence is the formal record of the facts before the prosecution or the judicial police; with that record the investigation is born. Urgent acts are the steps that must be taken at once so as not to lose evidence: their window is measured in hours, not months. And special participant is the standing the law recognises in you: you are not a party like the prosecution or the defence, but you are not a spectator either.
1. Victim of a crime in Colombia: it is not that you have no rights: it is that you do not know them
The law recognises them from day one. Article 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code guarantees you truth, justice and redress; article 136, the right to know what was done with your report; article 137, the right to appoint a lawyer of your own and to seek protective measures. None of that depends on the case being serious or on your arriving with evidence.
That standing has a name: special participant. Not a party like the prosecution or the defence, but not a spectator either: you have rights of your own and they are actionable (Corte Const., Sent. C-209 de 2007).
The prosecution, for its part, does have duties towards you: it must look after the protection of victims and apply to the judge for measures of assistance, restoration of rights and full redress (Const. Pol., art. 250, nums. 6 y 7), and adopt the measures of care and personal and family safety the case requires (CPP, art. 133). What it does not do is represent you: it acts in the name of the State.
Two beliefs sustain the opposite idea. The first is that you must arrive with the case already proved: that is not so, investigating and proving fall to the State (Const. Pol., art. 250; CPP, arts. 66 y 67), and you are not a claimant in civil proceedings. The second is the fear that the report will be turned against you: false accusation against an identified person requires direct intent, that is, reporting in the knowledge that the person is innocent (C.P., art. 436).
Neither is a reason not to act. What follows is what believing them costs.
2. What is lost while you wait
The rights exist; none is exercised by the mere fact of existing. And what is lost meanwhile does not come back.
The first thing lost is evidence. With the report, which must be accepted, the investigation is born (CPP, art. 69); the steps that cannot wait are called urgent acts for a reason. What is not secured in those hours is later argued without support.
The second is the decision. Most cases do not get past the inquiry stage: according to the Corporación Excelencia en la Justicia, in 2024 more than 80% of cases handled ended in closure. That decision must be reasoned, must be communicated to the victim and can be challenged (CPP, art. 79; Corte Const., Sent. C-1154/2005); we explain it in closure of the file and Directive 0002 of 2025. But only someone who finds out, and knows they can, challenges it.
And there is a third loss, quieter. When the proceeding moves on without your asking for anything, the experience ends up confirming exactly what led you not to ask: that there was nothing to be done here. The proceeding was not against you. It was without you.
3. How they are exercised: three rights and three acts
Knowing them is not enough: each has an act that sets it in motion. There are three, and they are not exercised at the same moment or before the same official.
Ordering them is easier with a theory of the case —which facts you maintain, what you are asking the proceeding for, on what evidence and what you decide not to do—, which is the same tool the defence works with and is developed in that piece.
3.1. Knowing what happened to your report
Article 136 of the Criminal Procedure Code recognises the right to know what was done with the report. It comes first because without it the other two are blind: no one asks for what is missing if they do not know what has been done.
The act: a written application to the prosecutor on the case asking for the state of the proceedings and copies of the decisions. From that comes the list of what is missing.
3.2. Asking for investigation, protection and redress
These are three distinct applications and it is worth not confusing them.
Investigation: applying for specific steps and, if the prosecutor refuses them, going to the judge of control of guarantees (Corte Const., Sent. C-209 de 2007). It has three movements —putting in what you already have, asking for the acts only the State can order, and contradicting whatever would close the case prematurely—, and all three are the exercise of the right to evidence. Protection: article 137, num. 1, of the Criminal Procedure Code allows you to ask the prosecutor for measures against harassment, threats or attacks on you, your family or the witnesses. Redress: the proceeding that opens after conviction, where the claims are formulated and argued (CPP, arts. 102 y ss.).
If the case involves gender-based violence there is a reinforced framework: Law 1257 of 2008 recognises women’s right to a life free of violence and provides for measures that can be sought before family commissions or family courts. Public denunciation —the so-called escrache— is not the formal channel and carries legal risks of its own, which we deal with in a separate piece.
3.3. Appointing a lawyer of your own
Article 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows you to appoint counsel who intervenes at the stages of the proceeding. It does not replace the prosecutor: it represents your interest, which almost always coincides with the State’s and sometimes does not.
The act: granting a power of attorney. The moment it shows most is when a plea agreement, a discontinuance or a closure appears, because that is where the general interest and yours can part company and someone has to be watching yours alone.
3.4. What not to do when exercising them
Three omissions weigh as much as the three acts.
Do not publish or forward the material before someone reviews it with judgement: circulating a piece of evidence is the fastest way to have its authenticity argued over. Do not fill the gaps in memory with assumptions, because “I do not remember exactly” is a valid answer (CPP, art. 383) and there is guidance for witnesses worth reading before giving evidence. And do not let the window for urgent acts expire while waiting to have everything clear.
Deciding whether to report is yours, and no one should take that decision for you. But it deserves to be taken with real information: knowing what happens, what rights you have and which fears are not, legally speaking, genuine obstacles. That is what this article set out to offer.
4. Conclusions
From the day of the act, the law recognises you as a special participant, with rights of your own. Articles 11, 136 and 137 of the CPP guarantee truth, justice and redress, knowing what was done with your report and appointing a lawyer. You do not have to arrive with the case proved: investigating and proving fall to the State. The prosecution must look after your protection, but it acts in the name of the State and does not represent you.
Those rights do not switch themselves on, and what is lost while you wait does not come back. Evidence is lost that only urgent acts can secure. And the decision is lost: in 2024, more than 80% of cases handled ended in closure. Each right has its act: asking for the state of the proceedings, applying for investigation, protection and redress, and appointing counsel.
The initial consultation puts those acts in order: two one-hour meetings and a written opinion. In them we review what happened, what was done with your report and what to ask for at each stage. If you have not yet reported, the firm can support you in filing the criminal complaint. It can take on your representation as a victim throughout the proceeding, especially when a plea agreement, a discontinuance or a closure appears.
What people usually ask us
Can I report anonymously?
The prosecution accepts anonymous reports and can open a preliminary inquiry on the basis of them. But an anonymous report has significant practical limitations: whoever files it cannot be notified of progress, cannot seek protective measures as an identified victim, and the proceeding tends to move more slowly.
If anonymity is a safety concern, the most advisable thing is to take advice before deciding: there are protective mechanisms that limit exposure without giving up procedural rights.
Do I need a lawyer to file a report?
No. Anyone can report to the prosecution or the judicial police without legal assistance. It is not a requirement.
There is a difference, though, between being able to do it and doing it in the most strategic way. A victims’ lawyer helps to order the account, identify the evidence, anticipate the procedural route and avoid errors that are hard to correct. A prior consultation need not be long.
How long do I have to report?
It depends on the offence. The Criminal Code sets limitation periods that vary with seriousness and sentence. The most serious offences —homicide, kidnapping, sexual violence— have longer periods, and in offences against minors the period starts to run when the victim comes of age.
It is unwise to assume there is unlimited time: evidence is lost and witnesses forget. If you have doubts about your case, that should be one of the first questions in an advice session.
Can I withdraw a report I have already filed?
It depends on the type of offence. Some are querellable and require the victim to maintain the accusation; in those cases withdrawal is possible. But most serious offences —violence, serious injury, homicide, extortion, sexual abuse— are subject to public prosecution: once the investigation has begun, the proceeding belongs to the State and cannot be stopped unilaterally.
Withdrawing the report in those cases does not have the expected effect and is sometimes read against the victim. Before deciding, it is worth taking advice.
What are urgent acts and why do they matter in the first hours?
They are steps the prosecution and the judicial police must take immediately where there is a risk of losing evidence: inspection of the scene, collection of physical evidence, forensic medical examination, initial interviews with witnesses.
Once the first hours or days have passed, many lose their usefulness or become impossible. If you have been the victim of a recent offence with physical or digital traces, how quickly you act can be decisive.
Legal and bibliographic references
- Const. Pol., art. 250 (titularidad de la acción penal en la Fiscalía).
- CPP (L. 906/2004), art. 11 (derechos de las víctimas); art. 69 (deber de recibir la denuncia); arts. 66 y 67 (deber de denunciar y de investigar); art. 79 (archivo de las diligencias); arts. 102 y ss. (incidente de reparación integral); arts. 132 a 137 (intervención de las víctimas); arts. 331 a 335 (preclusión); art. 383 (deber de decir verdad del testigo).
- C.P. (L. 599/2000), art. 221 (calumnia); art. 435 (falsa denuncia); art. 436 (falsa denuncia contra persona determinada).
- L. 1257/2008 (derecho de las mujeres a una vida libre de violencias; medidas de protección y atención).
- L. 2477/2025 (reparación integral como causal de extinción de la acción penal; principio de oportunidad; preacuerdos y allanamientos).
- Corte Const., Sent. C-209 de jun. 21/2007 (la víctima como interviniente especial). M.P. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa.
- Corte Const., Sent. C-454/2006 (derecho a la verdad); Sent. C-516/2007 (derechos de la víctima en la investigación).
- Corte Const., Sent. C-1154/2005 y Sent. C-1177/2005 (archivo e inadmisión: motivación, comunicación a la víctima y control).
- Corte Const., Sent. C-591/2005 (la preclusión no se restringe a la etapa posterior a la imputación) y Sent. C-920/2007.
- CSJ, Cas. Penal, rad. 27873 de 27/08/2007 (procedencia de la preclusión en la indagación por causales objetivas). M.P. Julio Enrique Socha Salamanca.
- DANE, Encuesta de Convivencia y Seguridad Ciudadana (ECSC 2024, datos de 2023); Corporación Excelencia en la Justicia (cifras de gestión de casos, 2024).
This information is general and informative in nature and does not constitute legal advice or create a lawyer-client relationship. Every case depends on its particular circumstances. For tailored advice, contact us directly.
About the author
Juan Antonio Matiz Monroy — A graduate of the Universidad de los Andes (2017) with a specialisation in Criminal Law from the Universidad Sergio Arboleda (2021), he built a solid command of oral litigation at the Universidad del Rosario and at the Universidad de Salamanca, Spain. He sharpened his rigour in evidential reasoning with CESJUL and the Universidad Externado de Colombia. In parallel he went deeper into asset forfeiture —a field that requires understanding the State’s logic on property with the same rigour with which liberty is defended—. He is currently a candidate for the Master’s in Evidential Reasoning at the Universitat de Girona (Spain) and the Università degli Studi di Genova (Italy). Professional licence 294.746 (C.S.J.).