## Facts

- José Eurípides Parra Parra filed a public action of unconstitutionality against Article 140(6) of Colombia’s Civil Code.
- Article 140 lists causes of marriage nullity. Numeral 6 stated that a marriage is “null and without effect” when the woman’s consent was not free because she was violently abducted, unless she consents to the marriage after she is out of the abductor’s power.
- Parra Parra argued that the text drew an unjustified sex-based distinction by addressing only women as possible victims of abduction and coercion in connection with marriage, excluding men who might be abducted and forced into marriage.
- The case proceeded as abstract constitutional review before the Colombian Constitutional Court (Sala Plena) under the Court’s authority to review statutes challenged by citizens.
- The Court noted that Parra Parra also challenged Civil Code Article 145, but that part of the filing was rejected because the Court had already ruled on it in an earlier decision (constitutional res judicata).
- The Court received submissions from public entities and a nonbinding opinion from the Procuraduría General de la Nación during the constitutionality proceedings.
- The reporting justice was Magistrate Eduardo Montealegre Lynett, and the judgment was issued on January 17, 2001 (Sent. C-007/01, Exp. D-3032).

## Issues

1. Does Article 140(6) violate constitutional equality by limiting the marriage-nullity ground for coerced consent by violent abduction to cases where the victim is a woman?
2. If the defect is the exclusion of men from the norm’s scope, is the problem a relative legislative omission that the Court may remedy through a conditional constitutionality ruling rather than striking down the provision?
3. Is the rule’s structure—nullity for lack of free consent due to abduction, with the possibility of later validation if the victim freely consents once released—consistent with constitutional requirements of dignity and autonomous consent in family life?

## Decision

- The Constitutional Court held that the provision, read literally as applying only to women, conflicted with the constitutional requirement of equal treatment of men and women in comparable situations.
- The Court characterized the defect as a **relative legislative omission**: the legislature regulated coerced marriage by abduction but did so incompletely by restricting the remedy to one sex.
- Applying a conservation approach, the Court **did not invalidate** the entire numeral; instead, it issued a **conditional constitutionality** ruling.
- The Court declared Article 140(6) constitutional **on the condition** that it be interpreted to cover **both women and men**: a marriage is null when either spouse’s consent was not free because he or she was violently abducted, unless the victim later consents while no longer under the abductor’s power.
- The decision preserved the legal consequence for coerced marriages (nullity) and preserved the possibility of validating the marriage through later, free consent after release, provided the interpretation is sex-neutral.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory rule on marriage and consent must comply with constitutional equality; the State may not reserve a legal remedy for coercion to only one sex when the harm and the interest guarded (free consent) are the same.
- Sex-based wording in older civil legislation can be unconstitutional when it results in unequal legal coverage for similarly situated persons.
- A **relative legislative omission** exists when the legislature addresses a subject but unjustifiably excludes a group that should be included under the Constitution; this can justify constitutional relief without removing the whole norm.
- The Court may use **conditional constitutionality** to keep a norm in force while requiring a constitutionally compliant interpretation that removes the discriminatory exclusion.
- In marriage law, consent obtained through force or coercion is incompatible with constitutional protections tied to dignity and personal autonomy; a later, free decision by the victim after release may validate the relationship only if it reflects genuine, voluntary consent.

## Conclusion

In Sentencia C-007/01, the Colombian Constitutional Court reviewed Civil Code Article 140(6), which treated violent abduction as a ground for marriage nullity only when the abducted victim was a woman, and held that the sex-specific limitation violated equality; the Court preserved the rule through a conditional ruling that requires interpreting the provision to apply equally to men and women, maintaining nullity for coerced consent while allowing validation only through later, free consent once the victim is no longer under the abductor’s power.


José Eurípides Parra Parra v. Art. 140(6), Civil Code, Sent. C-007/01 (2001)