One of the difficulties that tort law encounters is determining the place where a cross-jurisdictional cybertort occurs, as well as determining the judge who will hear the case. This research article explores how the traditional criterion of “place where the harmful event occurred” must be interpreted when a cybertort occurs in Colombia. To address the issue, the dogmatic method following the solutions that foreign law offer is applied. These solutions could inspire both Colombian law and the laws of regimes that apply the criterion of loci delicti commissi. Thus, in this article, we propose that, in cases of cybertorts in Colombia, the “place where the harmful event occurred” should be understand as the “domicile of the victim”. Based on this interpretation, the authors of this article use the term pro victimæ, aiming to close the gap that the plaintiff finds when he or she does not or cannot appeal damage actions in the defendant’s domicile. This research examines how the criterion proposed is similar to the interpretations offered by the United States, Australia and the Court of Justice of the European Union. It also examines the affinity that this criterion has with the national legal system.