Juan Antonio Matiz Monroy — Lawyer, Universidad de los Andes · Specialist in Criminal Law, Universidad Sergio Arboleda · Professional licence 294.746 (C.S.J.)
1. Summoned by the prosecutor in Colombia: check the summons and what you are being called to
In this step you will learn what details to ask for before confirming attendance and why the capacity in which you are summoned orders everything else.
The summons can arrive by telephone, by email or in a letter, and it can come from the prosecutor’s office or from the judicial police. Before replying it is worth recording four details: the office or unit issuing it, the name and position of whoever contacted you, the case number and the capacity in which you are required.
That last detail matters because three distinct steps are often confused. The interview is a judicial police activity within the inquiry (art. 205). Questioning of a suspect is directed at someone the prosecution already considers a possible author or participant (art. 282). Testimony is the evidence given at the oral trial or as evidence taken in advance (art. 383).
The distinction has consequences. The duty to testify in art. 383 refers to the oral trial and to evidence taken in advance, not to inquiry-stage steps. And above all operates art. 33 of the Constitution, echoed in art. 385 of the Code: no one may be compelled to give evidence against themselves, against their spouse or permanent partner or against close relatives.
If you are not yet clear which stage your case is at, the account of the inquiry stage and the rights of the suspect explains how it begins, how it ends and what powers the law recognises before the charge.
2. Understand what questioning of a suspect is
In this step you will learn what the summons presupposes and how the appointment is built.
Art. 282 describes the act precisely. It lies where the prosecutor or judicial police officer has well-founded reasons, on the evidential means provided in the Code, to infer that a person is the author of or a participant in the conduct under investigation, and it is carried out without bringing any charge against them.
Two readings follow from that wording. The first is that the summons is not a neutral formality: it presupposes that the investigation already identifies you as a possible author or participant. The second is that there are still no charges. It is not a charging hearing, no detention measure is argued there and responsibility is not decided.
The structure of the appointment is stepped. Before any question you must be told that you have the right to remain silent and that you are not obliged to give evidence against yourself or your relatives. Only if you do not exercise those rights and state a wish to speak, the provision says, may questioning take place in the presence of a lawyer.
The order is not accidental: the suspect’s statement is not the starting point of the appointment, but its consequence. Without that statement of will, the questioning has nowhere to begin.
3. Decide whether to speak, stay silent or do both in part
In this step you will learn why the decision is not binary and what information sustains it.
Silence is protected by art. 33 of the Constitution and cannot be weighed against you. The Code echoes this in art. 8, lit. c). The Constitutional Court made clear in Judgment C-799 of 2005 that the reference in that article to the status of accused is without prejudice to the timely exercise, through lawful channels, of the right of defence by the suspect at the inquiry stage.
That said, the real choice is rarely between speaking and staying silent. Speaking without knowing what is in the file is not transparency: an answer that is true but incomplete can end up the most damaging item in the file, because it is recorded and later read in the light of material that was not known at the time. Staying silent by reflex, on the other hand, gives up fixing one’s own version at the only moment when the prosecution has not yet brought charges.
Between those extremes lie selective silence, subject by subject, and the negotiated appearance dealt with in the last section.
The decision can be taken by the suspect themselves: self-representation exists and depends on no one’s authorisation. What technical defence adds is not extra rights, but the judgement to know what is in the file and what consequences each answer carries.
4. Prepare for the appointment
In this step you will learn what can be done before, during and after the appearance.
Before
You can ask the prosecution for a copy of what is in the inquiry file. The Supreme Court ordered that the suspect be given the documents in the file —the report of the offence among them—, with the exception of physical evidence, whose disclosure takes place at the indictment hearing (arts. 337 and 344; Sala de Casación Penal, STP5195-2025, rad. 144141).
Art. 267 also recognises, in someone not yet charged, powers of their own: to take legal advice; to search for, identify, collect and package physical evidence; to have it examined by private experts at their own cost; to carry out interviews in order to discover useful information and use them in their defence before the judicial authorities; and to ask the judge of control of guarantees to review steps they consider affect their fundamental rights.
With that material in view, deciding what to answer stops being a gamble.
During
The provision contemplates that, if the suspect states a wish to speak, the questioning takes place in the presence of a lawyer. Silence can be exercised selectively: staying silent on one subject does not require staying silent on all, nor does answering one point require answering everything.
Every answer should rest on evidence verified beforehand and not on the reconstruction memory makes in the moment, and nothing should be asserted about facts that could not be checked. What is said is recorded in the wording it had that day.
After
The appointment does not close the inquiry. What was said can be tested against one’s own material gathered under art. 267. If that comparison shows that there are no grounds or factual circumstances allowing the act to be characterised as an offence, closure of the proceedings can be applied for (art. 79). If the inquiry period has expired, a decision on the merits can be demanded in writing (art. 175).
It is also worth not discussing the facts with third parties: those conversations are covered by no confidentiality and whoever hears them can be interviewed.
5. Know what gets recorded
In this step you will learn what is done afterwards with whatever you say.
Art. 205 requires the judicial police to record interviews and questioning in writing or by audio or audiovisual recording, and to subject that record to chain of custody. What is said does not, then, stay in the official’s memory: it becomes an item of physical evidence.
That record, however, is not evidence by itself. At trial, only what is produced or introduced publicly, orally, in a concentrated way and subject to confrontation and contradiction before the trial judge counts as evidence (art. 16).
What can be done with a pre-trial statement is delimited: refreshing the witness’s memory, impeaching their credibility —art. 403, num. 4, covers earlier statements, and art. 393, lit. b), allows their use in cross-examination— and, exceptionally, admission as hearsay where used to prove the truth of its content, a regime art. 438 restricts to listed situations (Corte Suprema de Justicia, SP606-2017, rad. 44950).
The premise of the first two uses is worth noting: they operate on a witness. If the accused offers to give evidence at their own trial, they appear as a witness and are examined on oath (art. 394). Hence a statement given at the inquiry stage weighs not only for what it says, but for what it conditions later.
6. Consider a negotiated appearance
In this step you will learn what the middle route is, how it is built and where its limits lie.
Between speaking without a safety net and staying silent altogether there is a third possibility. Art. 8, lit. d), provides that the content of conversations aimed at reaching an agreement on a declaration of responsibility in any of its forms, or an alternative dispute resolution method, may not be used against the person if they are not finalised.
And the principle of opportunity does not wait for the charge: art. 323 enables it from the investigation stage. At the inquiry stage the ground that naturally operates is the first in art. 324 —offences whose maximum penalty does not exceed six years or whose principal penalty is a fine, with full redress to a known or identified victim—, which does not require the status of accused.
The route does not consist in announcing the framework on arriving at the appointment. A label applied by the defence does not bind the prosecution or change the nature of the act. What defines it is a prior agreement: counsel approaches the prosecutor on the case and agrees with them that their client will appear on condition that the appointment be understood as within a negotiation. The record does not create that framework; it establishes it, and that is why it matters if the point has to be argued later.
The Prosecution Service’s internal rules on the principle of opportunity require the approaches to be documented from the outset and provide that, if the negotiation is not concluded, the information and the material handed over by the applicant may not be used.
The protection has three limits worth knowing before relying on it. It does not include derivative-use immunity: it protects what was said and handed over, not the lines of investigation that information reveals. It operates for the person negotiating, not for third parties implicated. And the approaches are not binding: one can talk and obtain nothing. That is why the order matters, and the benefit and its scope are defined before anything is disclosed.
7. Conclusions
Before replying to a summons, it is worth knowing in what capacity you are called. An interview, questioning of a suspect and testimony are not the same. Questioning under art. 282 presupposes that the prosecution already considers you a possible author or participant, but it is not a charge. Before any question you must be told that you may remain silent. That silence, protected by art. 33 of the Constitution, cannot be weighed against you.
The real choice is rarely between speaking and staying silent. There is room for selective silence and for a negotiated appearance, whose protection has precise limits. Before the appointment you can ask for a copy of the documents in the file and exercise the powers in art. 267. What is said is recorded. It is not evidence by itself, but if you testify at trial it can impeach your credibility and conditions what follows.
Reviewing the file before deciding what to answer is the purpose of the initial consultation: two one-hour meetings and a written opinion. In it we check the capacity in which you are summoned, what is in the inquiry file and the reach of each answer. From that diagnosis, the firm can accompany you with criminal investigation advice and take on your criminal defence if the case moves forward.
Frequently asked questions
What people usually ask us
Am I obliged to attend if I am summoned to questioning as a suspect?
Art. 282 imposes no duty to attend, and art. 33 of the Constitution prevents anyone being compelled to give evidence against themselves or their close relatives.
The duty to testify in art. 383 refers to the oral trial and to evidence taken in advance, not to inquiry-stage steps. The decision whether to attend, and whether to speak, is best taken after reviewing the file.
Is staying silent read as an admission of responsibility?
No. Silence is protected by art. 33 of the Constitution and the Code provides that it may not be used against the person (art. 8, lit. c).
It can be exercised in whole or in part, subject by subject, and is no indication of guilt.
Can I ask for a copy of what is in the investigation before the appointment?
Yes, with one limit. The Supreme Court ordered that the suspect be given the documents in the inquiry file, such as the report of the offence.
Physical evidence is excluded, as its disclosure takes place at the indictment hearing (arts. 337 and 344; STP5195-2025).
Can I attend without a lawyer?
Self-representation exists and depends on no one’s authorisation. Art. 282 provides that, if the suspect states a wish to speak, the questioning takes place in the presence of a lawyer.
What advice adds is not extra rights, but judgement about what is in the file and what consequences each answer carries.
Is what I say at the questioning used as evidence at trial?
Not automatically. At trial only what is produced or introduced at the hearing before the trial judge counts as evidence (art. 16).
An earlier statement can serve to refresh the witness’s memory, to impeach their credibility (arts. 393 and 403) and, exceptionally, to come in as hearsay in the listed situations in art. 438.
Can I be summoned as a witness if I am the person under investigation?
The capacity in which you are summoned is best clarified in writing before the appointment.
Neither a witness nor a suspect is obliged to give evidence against themselves or against their spouse, permanent partner or close relatives (art. 33 of the Constitution and art. 385 of the Code), and the duty to testify in art. 383 refers to the oral trial and to evidence taken in advance.
Does speaking get the case closed faster?
There is no automatic relationship between the two. Closure lies where the prosecution establishes that there are no grounds or factual circumstances allowing the act to be characterised as an offence (art. 79).
That depends on the material gathered in the investigation. If you want your particular case reviewed, you can request an initial consultation.
Legal and bibliographic references
Legislation: Constitución Política de Colombia, arts. 29 y 33. · Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, art. 14.3.g. · Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, art. 8.2.g. · Ley 906 de 2004: arts. 8, 16, 79, 175, 205, 212B, 267, 282, 323, 324, 337, 344, 383, 385, 393, 394, 403, 437 y 438.
Case law: Corte Constitucional: C-799 de 2005 · C-1154 de 2005 · C-025 de 2009 · C-029 de 2009 · C-127 de 2011 · C-559 de 2019. · Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casación Penal: SP606-2017, rad. 44950 · STP3038-2018 · STP5195-2025, rad. 144141.
Scholarship: Bernal Cuéllar & Montealegre Lynett. El proceso penal. Tomo I y II. Externado, 6.ª ed., 2013. · Defensoría del Pueblo / USAID. Técnicas de investigación de la defensa para el Sistema Penal Acusatorio Colombiano. Bogotá, 2005. · Múnera-Jaramillo & Zapata-Martínez. «El derecho a la no autoincriminación en Colombia.» Nuevo Foro Penal, 2024.
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.).