Comparative analysis of the legal requirements for self-defense and putative defense in Colombia

Abstract

The analysis of self-defense and putative self-defense in the Colombian context underlines their importance as legal mechanisms to protect essential legal assets against illegitimate or perceived aggression. The research delves into the normative foundations of article 32 of the Colombian Penal Code and into the doctrinal interpretation, highlighting the criteria of proportionality, necessity and absence of provocation. The challenges inherent to the practical application of these figures are highlighted, particularly in the evaluation of the error in putative self-defense and its impact on the judicial system. Comparatively, the similarities and differences with other jurisdictions, such as Spain, Mexico and the United States, are analyzed, revealing diverse approaches to proportionality and the use of force. The ethical, legal and social implications are addressed around the balance between the protection of individual rights and collective security, emphasizing the need for clear normative criteria and coherent judicial decisions to guarantee fair application and avoid abuses. Finally, reforms are proposed to strengthen the Colombian regulatory framework and promote confidence in the criminal justice system.