Juan Antonio Matiz Monroy — Lawyer, Universidad de los Andes · Specialist in Criminal Law, Universidad Sergio Arboleda · Professional licence 294.746 (C.S.J.)
You found out in one of two ways. Either you searched your name on Google and up came a news item, a court decision on the Judiciary’s server or the record of a case that is long over. Or you searched nothing at all: you were turned down for a job, a loan, a contract or an application, and only afterwards learned why.
Behind it is an old case, a closure, an acquittal or a sentence already served. The file was closed. The data was not.
That it is still there does not mean it has the right to stay. The Constitution is blunt: only final convictions are criminal records. When the legal title that sustained that publication ended, what remains is inertia, and inertia is only cut by making a claim.
Almost everyone who arrives here wants the same thing: how to delete it. It is worth saying at the outset, because it saves months: deleting it from the internet is almost never possible. What is possible is de-indexing, anonymising or correcting it, and those are different things asked for in different places.
The right to be forgotten exists for that. But it does not operate on its own, and it is not asked for in the same way everywhere: the rule depends on the register where the data sits.
1. The right to be forgotten in Colombia: the case ended; the data carried on
The starting point is an asymmetry. An acquittal, a closure or a discontinuance ends the proceeding, but does not touch what was published while the case was alive: the press item, the decision on an open-access server, the record someone copied.
And the Constitution leaves no margin: “Only convictions handed down in final judicial decisions have the character of criminal and administrative records in all legal spheres” (C.N., art. 248). A case without a final conviction is not a record, and no database may treat it as though it were.
It happens to someone who was acquitted and is still associated online with the facts, to someone whose record was cancelled, to someone who served a sentence years ago and to someone who appears in a publication they never authorised.
It is worth saying where it really hurts, because it is not always the search. It is the no: the loan refused, the vacancy lost at the final interview, the contract not signed, the application returned. Almost no one explains to the person that this was the reason, and so the harm is usually discovered late and by their own efforts.
2. What not claiming costs
The legal order no longer protects that harm. But nor does it undo it by itself, and the distance between what the law allows and what actually happens is always paid by the same person.
Time does not erase. A publication does not expire with age, and an open-access server does not prune on its own initiative. That ten years have passed does not by itself change what a search engine returns.
The police certificate does not switch off the internet. They are different registers, with different controllers. That your records certificate comes back clean does not move a press item or a published decision, because whoever controls that data is someone else.
And a request to the wrong controller does not cut the harm. Worse: it leaves a trail, consumes time and usually ends in a refusal that then has to be rebutted from a weaker position than at the start.
There lies the harm the legal order no longer justifies. It is not that the right does not exist. It is that it was not exercised, or was exercised in the wrong place.
3. The rule depends on the register
There is no single procedure, and none of the three is called “deleting”. There are three scenarios with rules of their own, and the first thing is not to draft anything: it is to know which one your case is in.
3.1. A news item or a Google result
Here the basis is article 15 of the Constitution —privacy, reputation and habeas data— as the Constitutional Court has interpreted it for the digital environment: information that was once legitimately public can lose that legitimacy with the passage of time and a change of circumstances.
The reference is Judgment T-277 of 2015 (M.P. María Victoria Calle Correa), and it is worth reading carefully what it ordered: de-indexing, not deletion. The item stays with the outlet that published it; what ceases is the name bringing it back in every search. The same judgment warned that the right is not absolute.
3.2. A decision published by the Judiciary
This is the scenario with the most specific rule, and usually the one that weighs most. It is not press and not a commercial file: these are decisions published on open-access servers and reachable from any search engine.
The Criminal Cassation Chamber, following the line of Judgment SU-458 of 2012 of the Constitutional Court, laid down a sub-rule in two steps. First, convictions and the orders referring to them “shall be offered in full to the community on its public-access server —without suppression of the names of those prosecuted”. And second, the decisive part: “where it is established that the sentence has been judicially declared served or time-barred, the names of the convicted persons shall be suppressed from the open-access databases, save where the law requires that information to be kept public at all times”.
Nor is this a deletion here: the full document is kept in the Court’s archives. What ceases is the exposure of the name in the open database and, with it, the chance discovery by search engine.
The condition is evidentiary, and it is where most applications fail. It is not enough to state that the sentence was served: it has to be established with the decision that so declares. In 2024 the Court refused an anonymisation for that reason alone —asked to produce the decision establishing extinction of the sentence, the applicant produced none— (CSJ, Cas. Penal, Auto AP4438-2024, ago. 6/2024, Rad. 21244. M.P. Gerson Chaverra Castro).
3.3. A database with an identifiable controller
This is the ground of ordinary habeas data. Law 1581 of 2012 allows you to address the data controller —the outlet, the platform, the directory, the body that published— and ask for the data to be deleted, rectified or updated.
The controller has fifteen business days to answer. If it stays silent or refuses, two routes remain: a complaint to the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce, or a constitutional injunction, depending on the right affected and the urgency. Credit reports also have their own statute, Law 1266 of 2008, and are addressed to the operator, not to the search engine.
Whatever the scenario, the order of work is the reverse of what is usually attempted: before writing to anyone you need the evidence —the decision declaring the closure, the acquittal, the service of sentence or the limitation— and you need to know who controls the data.
And there are cases where it does not lie. Where the person is a public official and the information is relevant to their function; where the data has historical interest; where it is accurate and of current public interest; and where what is sought is to conceal facts under live investigation, a situation in which the request can have consequences of its own. The right exists, but it is not absolute.
4. Conclusions
A closure, an acquittal or a discontinuance ends the proceeding, but not what was published while it was alive. The Constitution is clear: only final convictions are criminal records (article 248). Even so, time does not erase and the police certificate does not switch off the internet. Nor does a request to the wrong controller cut the harm.
Deleting is almost never possible; what can be asked for depends on the register where the data sits. A news item is de-indexed, as Judgment T-277 of 2015 ordered. A conviction published by the Judiciary is anonymised once the decision declaring the sentence served or time-barred is produced. A file is corrected before its controller, who has fifteen business days to answer (Law 1581 of 2012). The right is not absolute, and the evidence comes before any request.
That is why the first step is a diagnosis, not a draft. In the initial consultation we identify which register holds the data, who controls it and which judicial decision serves as evidence. From there, the firm can take on the applications for de-indexing, anonymisation or deletion that fit the case. That work forms part of the protection of reputation.
What people usually ask us
Why does my case appear on Google if it was closed?
Because closure, acquittal or discontinuance ends the proceeding, but does not touch what was already published. The outlet’s item and the decision on the open-access server stay where they were, and the search engine goes on returning them. Cutting that exposure requires asking for it, and asking in the right register.
Can I be refused a job or a loan over a case that did not end in conviction?
As a criminal record, no: the Constitution recognises that character only in final convictions (art. 248), and the police certificate reflects that. It is another matter if the decision is taken on the basis of what someone found online. That is the harm this piece is about, and against it what lies is not arguing about a record —there is none— but asking for de-indexing or deletion of the data in the register where it is published.
How do I get my name out of the Judiciary’s case search?
You apply to the court that published the decision, under the rule in section 3.2. For convictions, suppression of the name from open-access databases lies where it is established that the sentence was served or is time-barred, with the judicial decision that so declares; without that evidence the application is refused. And it is not a deletion: the full document is kept in the Court’s archives.
How long does a right-to-be-forgotten request take?
The data controller has 15 business days to answer a request for deletion (Ley 1581/2012, art. 15). If it does not answer or the answer is negative, a complaint to the SIC can take additional weeks. A constitutional injunction is decided within ten business days. The whole process can vary between weeks and several months depending on the type of information, the source and the controller’s cooperation.
Can I ask Google to remove information I did not publish?
Yes. Google has a specific form for requesting de-indexing of results that affect the right to be forgotten, privacy or reputation. The request must argue why the information is no longer relevant or is disproportionately harmful. In Colombia, if Google does not respond adequately, the SIC has jurisdiction to act and this can be supplemented with a constitutional injunction.
Does the right to be forgotten guarantee the information disappears entirely?
Not necessarily. The scope depends on the source: a search result can be de-indexed; content on a platform can be asked to be removed. Where the information is in several sources, the process has to be directed at each one separately. In some cases, protection of press freedom or public interest limits the prospect of complete removal of the content, but de-indexing may still be achieved.
What if the media outlet refuses my request?
If the answer is negative or there is no answer within the legal period, a complaint can be filed with the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC), the personal data protection authority in Colombia. A constitutional injunction can also be brought where the refusal affects a fundamental right such as privacy, reputation or habeas data. Constitutional judges have been active in protecting these rights against digital outlets.
Does cancelling my criminal record remove the information from the internet?
Not automatically. Official cancellation of the record on the National Police certificate updates the State register, but does not remove information published in the media, in private databases or in search results. That requires a specific request to each source, using the cancellation of the record as the main legal basis for the application.
Does the right to be forgotten apply to negative reports at credit bureaus?
Yes, under a special regime governed by Law 1266 of 2008 (financial habeas data). That law provides that negative information may be kept at credit bureaus only for a maximum period equal to twice the period of default, capped at four years. Where that period is exceeded or the information is incorrect, you have the right to ask for correction or removal directly from the entity.
How do I know whether my case has a chance of succeeding?
The determining factors are: the age of the information, its current relevance to the public interest, your profile (private individual versus public figure or official), the type of data controller and the accuracy of the information. Cases with the best prospects: old information about cases already resolved, inaccurate reports never corrected, or financial reports past their permitted period. An initial assessment allows the specific viability of your situation to be determined.
Legal and bibliographic references
Legislation. C.N., arts. 15, 20, 86 y 248. · L. 1581/2012, «Por la cual se dictan disposiciones generales para la protección de datos personales» (D.O. 48.587). · L. 1266/2008, «Por la cual se dictan las disposiciones generales del hábeas data» (D.O. 47.219). · D. 1377/2013, reglamentario parcial de la Ley 1581 de 2012.
Case law. C. Const., Sent. C-748 de 2011. M.P. Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub. · C. Const., Sent. SU-458 de 2012. · C. Const., Sent. T-020, ene. 27/2014. M.P. Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez. Exp. T-4.033.635. · C. Const., Sent. T-277 de 2015. M.P. María Victoria Calle Correa. · C.S.J., Sala de Casación Penal, Auto AP4438-2024, ago. 6/2024. Rad. 21244. M.P. Gerson Chaverra Castro.
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.).