Se presenta la distincion entre el error de tipo, que versa sobre los elementos del tipo de injusto, y error de derecho, que se da sobre la prohibicion juridica del hecho. Se estudia el error de tipo, senalando la consecuencia de exclusion del dolo, con la subsistencia de la culpa; tambien se incluye en ello el error sobre el tipo privilegiado. Luego se explica el error en persona, considerando posibles variaciones a traves de ejemplos. Esto lleva a considerar el error en el acto, en la meta del autor para analizar el aberratio ictus . Al entrar este “error” en relacion con el dolo eventual, surge un problema que tambien se analiza. Posteriormente se contempla el dolus generalis que se refiere al nexo causal, al desarrollo de la accion que origina la accion. A continuacion se ve el aberratio delicti , fenomeno que se resuelve segun la norma del dolo. Finalmente, ocupa la atencion el error del agente en la desviacion del curso causal, llegando al problema de la imputacion objetiva. Lo anterior concluye la cercania en la codificacion y tratamiento del error en los sistemas penales de Alemania y Colombia. The article begins by presenting the difference between a mistake in typification, which involves the elements of a crime’s typification, and a mistake in law, which occurs with regard to the legal prohibition of a certain act. Based on this distinction, the article then turns to mistakes in typification, showing the effect of excluding the intention to harm while preserving negligence. This section also includes the mistake of privileged typification. Afterward, the authors explain the mistake in the person, and, through a series of examples, they consider possible variants of this kind of mistake. This leads to the study of mistakes in the act, as part of the authors. goal of analyzing aberratio ictus. When this “mistake” becomes associated with the eventual intention to harm, another problem arises, which is also analyzed in the article. After this, the authors examine dolus generalis, which refers to the link of causality, that is, to the way the action that gives rise to the criminal act is developed. Next, the article focuses on aberratio delicti, an event solved according to the rule of the intention to harm. Finally, the authors turn to the agent’s mistake in deflecting the development of the path of causality, which leads to the problem of objective imputation. One can conclude that there are similarities between the German and the Colombian criminal law systems’ codification and treatment of mistakes.