REPORT N°
36/00
CASE 11.101
“CALOTO”
MASSACRE
COLOMBIA
April 13, 2000
I.
SUMMARY
1.
On December 16, 1992, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter "the Commission") received a petition submitted by the Corporación Colectivo de Abogados "José
Alvear Restrepo" (hereinafter "the petitioners") against the Republic of
Colombia (hereinafter "the State," "the Colombian State," or "Colombia")
alleging the extrajudicial executions of Darío Coicué Fernández, Ofelia Tombé
Vitonas, Carolina Tombé Ñusque, Adán Mestizo Rivera, Edgar Mestizo Rivera,
Eleuterio Dicué Calambas, Mario Julicué Ul (or Mario Julico), Tiberio Dicué
Corpus, María Jesús Guetia Pito (or María Jesusa Güeitía), Floresmiro Dicué
Mestizo, Mariana Mestizo Corpus, Nicolás Consa Hilamo (or Nicolás Conda),
Otoniel Mestizo Dagua (or Otoniel Mestizo Corpus), Feliciano Otela Ocampo (or
Feliciano Otela Campo), Calixto Chilgüezo Toconas (or Calixto Chilgüeso), Julio
Dagua Quiguanas, José Jairo Secué Canas, Jesús Albeiro Pilcué Pete, Daniel Gugu
Pete (or Daniel Pete) and Domingo
Cáliz Soscué (or Domingo Cálix Sescué) and harm to the physical integrity of
Jairo Llamo Ascué, members of the Paez indigenous community of northern Cauca
(hereinafter "the victims").
2.
The petitioners allege that on December 16, 1991, at "El Nilo" hacienda,
municipality of Caloto, state agents violated the victims' rights to life,
humane treatment, judicial guarantees and judicial protection, enshrined in
Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 25, and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter the "Convention" or the "American Convention"), and in Articles I,
XVIII, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
(hereinafter the "Declaration" or the "American Declaration").
3.
During the processing of this case, the State recognized its
responsibility for the facts alleged by the petitioner. On September 7, 1995, the parties began
to pursue a friendly settlement with the good offices of the Commission. Despite the efforts by the State and the
petitioners, and despite the State's acknowledgment of responsibility, on
October 5, 1998, the parties ended their pursuit of friendly settlement, and it
was decided to continue to process this case.
4.
After analyzing the elements of fact and of law brought forth by the
parties during the process, and the acknowledgments that resulted from the
friendly settlement process, the Commission declared the case admissible,
determined that the State is responsible for violating Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 25,
and 1(1) of the American Convention, and evaluated the measures taken to make
reparation for the harm caused.
II.
PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
5.
On January 21, 1993, the Commission opened the case under number 11.101,
and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Colombian State,
giving it 90 days to submit information. On March 17, 1993, the petitioner sent
additional information on the case, which was duly transmitted to the
State.
6.
The State submitted its answer on June 10, 1993. The petitioners presented their
observations and additional information on August 25, September 10, and December
30, 1993, which were duly forwarded to the State.
7.
On January 27, 1994, during the 85th regular session of the Commission, a
hearing was held in this case. On
March 9, 1994, the State presented written information that was duly forwarded
to the petitioners. The
petitioners, in turn, sent in additional information on June 24, 1994. On September 26, 1994, a hearing was
held during the Commission’s 87th session. On October 5 and 7, 1994, the State
provided additional information on domestic remedies, and on February 3 and 7,
1995, the petitioners submitted additional information on the domestic
proceedings.
8.
On February 22, 1995, the Commission made itself available to the parties
to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter, giving them 30 days to
respond. On March 22, 1995, the
State requested an extension, which it was given. On March 22, 1995, the petitioners
stated their position on the proposal.
On May 12, 1995, the State expressed its interest in initiating the
effort to reach a friendly settlement, and indicated that it would be willing to
create a Comité de Impulso, or
committee to give impetus to the investigations under way. The petitioners submitted observations
on June 29, July 21, and September 6, 1995, as to the criteria which, from their
point of view, should guide the search for a friendly settlement.
9.
On September 7, 1995, during its 90th session, the Commission held a
hearing in which the parties reiterated their interest in initiating a process
to seek friendly settlement as provided under Article 48(f) of the American
Convention. Accordingly, an act of
understanding was signed to create the Comité de Impulso for the Administration
of Justice. On September 14, 1995,
the State sent a communication regarding the case. On December 12, 1995, a Commission
delegation participated in a meeting of the Comité de Impulso in Colombia to learn
about its operation, initiatives, and progress.
10.
On February 23, 1996, during the Commission's 91st regular session, a
second hearing was held in which the Comité de Impulso submitted a final
report setting forth several recommendations. At that meeting, the parties agreed to
continue to pursue a friendly settlement by creating a Comité de Seguimiento a las Recomendaciones
formuladas por el Comité de Impulso, or Coordinating Committee for following
up on the recommendations of the Comité
de Impulso (hereinafter "Comité de
Seguimiento").
11.
On May 21, 1996, the State submitted a copy of the act of understanding
signed by the State and the petitioners creating the Comité de Seguimiento. On October 8, 1996, during the
Commission’s 93rd regular session, the parties expressed their views on the
obstacles to the operation of the Comité
de Seguimiento in evaluating progress in the friendly settlement
process. On October 9, 1996, the
State submitted a "Report on Implementation of the Recommendations on the cases
of Los Uvos, Caloto, and Villatina."
On October 18, 1996, the Commission urged the parties to overcome the
difficulties that had arisen in the process of following up on the Comité's
recommendations. In February 1997,
Commissioner Robert K. Goldman, Rapporteur for Colombia, Ambassador Jorge E.
Taiana, Executive Secretary of the Commission, and Denise Gilman, then a
Commission Specialist, traveled to Colombia to participate in a series of
meetings on the status of the friendly settlement process.
12.
On October 7, 1997, in the context of a hearing held during the 97th
session of the Commission, the Comité de
Seguimiento submitted a report evaluating implementation of the
recommendations made by the Comité de
Impulso. On October 16, 1997, the Commission issued a Resolution in which it
resolved to continue efforts to achieve a friendly settlement to this case by
its 98th session.
13.
On February 16, 1998, the chairperson of the Comité de Seguimiento informed the
Commission that the parties would submit their reports to the Commission
separately. In a hearing held on
February 23, 1998, during the 98th regular session of the Commission, the
parties expressed their intent to consider the friendly settlement procedure to
have ended and requested a pronouncement on the merits of the case. On that occasion, the petitioners
submitted their observations with respect to compliance with the recommendations
contained in the report of the Comité de
Seguimiento, which had been submitted to the Commission in October
1997. On March 3, 1998, the
Commission asked the State to provide additional information on the measures
adopted to investigate and try the persons responsible in the regular criminal
courts. On March 31, 1998, the
State requested a 30-day extension, which it was granted. On July 31, 1998, the State sent to the
Commission a copy of the speech by the President of the Republic in the act of
acknowledgment of responsibility for the events in the Caloto case, among
others. On October 5, 1998, during
the Commission's 100th regular session, a new hearing was held in which the
parties reiterated that it was impossible to reach a friendly settlement. On March 2, 1999, during the
Commission's 102nd session, the petitioners reiterated their request for a
pronouncement on the merits, pursuant to Article 50 of the
Convention.
III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES AND ATTEMPT TO REACH
FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT
A.
Position of the petitioner
14.
The petitioners allege that on December 16, 1991, approximately 80
persons belonging to the Paez indigenous community of northern Cauca,
inhabitants of the Resguardo de Huellas, responded to a call to meet, apparently
from the new owners of that property, in the mountainous part of the "El Nilo"
hacienda, district of El Palo, municipality of Caloto. The meeting was allegedly convened for
the purpose of discussing the presence of the indigenous community, as well as
to acknowledge the improvements they had made to the land during the previous
four years. At approximately 9:00
p.m., heavily armed men went to the site of the meeting. The petitioners indicated that according
to the testimony taken, some of these armed men were wearing uniforms of the
security forces. Some of these
individuals were alleged to have proceeded to hold and intimidate the group of
indigenous persons who had gathered, while the rest went in search of the other
members of the indigenous community, who had remained in their homes. Once all the indigenous persons living
on the farm were gathered, the armed men identified the supposed leaders of the
community and shot them. The
petitioners allege that the assailants shot indiscriminately at the rest of the
members of the community who, in panic, tried to flee. As a result, the following persons lost
their lives: Darío Coicué
Fernández, Ofelia Tombé Vitonas, Carolina Tombé Ñusque, Adán Mestizo Rivera,
Edgar Mestizo Rivera, Eleuterio Dicué Calambas, Mario Julicué Ul (or Mario
Julico), Tiberio Dicué Corpus, María Jesús Guetia Pito (or María Jesusa
Güeitía), Floresmiro Dicué Mestizo, Mariana Mestizo Corpus, Nicolás Consa Hilamo
(or Nicolás Conda), Otoniel Mestizo Dagua (or Otoniel Mestizo Corpus), Feliciano
Otela Ocampo (or Feliciano Otela Campo), Calixto Chilgüezo Toconas (or Calixto
Chilgüeso), Julio Dagua Quiguanas, José Jairo Secué Canas, Jesús Albeiro Pilcué
Pete, Daniel Gugu Pete (or Daniel
Pete) and Domingo Cáliz Soscué (or Domingo Cálix Sescué). Jairo Llamo Ascué suffered a gunshot
wound in the right arm. The
petitioners also note that after the massacre, the rustic dwellings that the
indigenous community had built on the property were destroyed and burned, along
with all the household equipment and goods, and domestic animals.
15.
The petitioners allege that the massacre was perpetrated by civilians and
members of the National Police.
They consider that the evidence, expert ballistic reports, and
inspections in the criminal and disciplinary proceedings point to the
responsibility of officials of the National Police. Concretely, they allege that two Police
officials and several agents at the service of “narco-terratenientes” had participated
in the massacre.
16.
As for the duty to provide due judicial protection with respect to the
violations perpetrated, the petitioners allege that the State organs have
committed various acts and omissions that have resulted in impunity for those
responsible. They argue that
initially the investigation was headed up by Lt. Libardo Morales Lagos, a member
of the National Police and Chief of the MECAL Investigative Unit, who presented
a witness whose testimony accused the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia (FARC) of being responsible for the acts committed. Maj. Gen. Miguel Antonio Gómez Padilla,
Director General of the Police, asserted that an internal investigation
confirmed that the Police had not participated in the events. The petitioners also argue that despite
the seriousness of the information collected, from the outset, tending to
incriminate Maj. Durán Argüelles and Capt. Castañeda Mateus, these officials
were not questioned with the celerity called for given the circumstances of the
case. The petitioners note that some of the witnesses, in declarations
subsequent to the initial questioning, retracted their accusations against
officials of the National Police and other civilians, and that these retractions
were given weight, tending to obstruct the investigation and cover up the
participation of, or exonerate of any liability, the perpetrators of and
accomplices in the massacre. In the
petitioners' opinion, the criminal proceedings were conducted with the aim of
ruling out the possibility of finding the members of the National Police
criminally liable. The petitioners
have also questioned the actions of the Office of the Procurator General of the
Nation in the investigation into the relationships of the implicated officers
with civilians Luis Alberto Seijas and Orlando Villa Zapata.
17.
Based on these grounds, the petitioners allege that the State violated
the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, and
judicial protection provided for at Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 25, and 1(1) of the
American Convention, and Articles I, XVII, and XXVI of the American
Declaration. They allege that there
has been a denial of justice so as to fall under the exemption to the
requirement to exhaust domestic remedies set out in Article 46(2)(c) of the
Convention. In addition, they
consider that the investigation and trial of the persons presumably responsible
has been subject to unwarranted delay.
B.
Position of the State
18.
The State has not questioned the version of the facts submitted by the
petitioners. Nor has it called into
question the alleged violations of the American Convention and the American
Declaration. During the initial
stages of the processing it provided information about the status of the
domestic proceedings,[1] and later alleged
that domestic remedies had not been exhausted and that in that context, one
could not consider explicit recognition of State responsibility.[2]
19.
At a later stage and in light of the settlements in the
contentious-administrative jurisdiction and the conclusions of the Comité de Seguimiento, which was
established in the framework of the effort to reach a friendly settlement, the
State acknowledged its international responsibility in this case.[3] Specifically, on July 29, 1998, the
President of the Republic publicly acknowledged the responsibility of the
Colombian State for the acts and omissions of public servants in the occurrence
of the violent events at Caloto.[4]
C.
The parties' efforts to reach a friendly settlement
1.
The creation and work of the Comité de Impulso
20.
On September 7, 1995, during the Commission's 90th session, Carlos
Vicente de Roux, representing the State, and María Victoria Fallon, Gustavo
Gallón Giraldo, and Juan Carlos Gutiérrez, representing the petitioners, agreed
to issue an act of understanding calling for the creation of a Committee to give
impetus to the administration of justice in relation to this case, in the
framework of an effort to arrive at friendly settlements under Article 48(f) of
the American Convention.
21.
The Comité de Impulso was
defined as a body for promoting domestic judicial proceedings, which precluded
it from receiving and directly assessing evidence or ruling on the
responsibilities of individuals and institutions. The mandate of the Comité de Impulso was to: (1) work to ensure judicial and
disciplinary proceedings are carried out that guarantee prompt judicial
proceedings; (2) identify evidence regarding the incidents in question and work
for them to be brought before the courts; (3) promote the protection of
witnesses as well as any judicial or disciplinary officers conducting the
investigations; (4) support the due exercise of the right to defense of the
accused and of the rights and activities of the civil party; (5) when so
required for the investigation, work for the reassignment of trials and the
creation of special units of the Prosecutors' Offices and of the Technical
Investigations Corps; (6) work for reparation of the damage caused by the acts
in question; (7) present a report to the next regular session of the IACHR
regarding performance of the tasks listed in the above points and the results of
the steps taken, indicating the factors that impacted on their success or
failure.[5]
22.
The Comité de Impulso
included: representatives of the victims in a series of cases before the
Commission, in the Caloto case the Colectivo de Abogados "José Alvear
Restrepo" and the then Comisión
Andina de Juristas/Seccional Colombiana; representatives of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, and the Office of the Presidential
Adviser for Human Rights; and on behalf of the State oversight organs,
representatives from the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, the
Prosecutor-General, and the Procurator General, and representatives of the
Colombian Bishops Conference.[6] The Comité de Impulso was formally installed
on September 29, 1995, in Bogotá in a public act, and it submitted its final
report in February 1996, at the 91st regular session of the Commission. Given the consensus on the value of the
work done by the Comité de Impulso,
the Commission will take into account its conclusions and recommendations
throughout this analysis.
23.
In general, the recommendations are focused on the circumstances of the
indigenous population in the region of Colombia in question. In this regard, the Comité de Impulso concluded that the
Caloto massacre affected the entirety of the Paez indigenous community of
northern Cauca, and that the measures to be adopted in the case should take into
account the claims and grievances of this community, in addition to having a
preventive purpose, to prevent a recurrence of the events like those in this
case. The Comité de Impulso's recommendations
indicate that the State should attend to its obligation to protect the
fundamental rights of the indigenous peoples, whose first right, the right to
life, should be understood in collective terms, as well as the right to ethnic
and cultural reproduction, the right to territory, and the right to
self-determination. It should be
noted that prior to the events in this case, the State entered into agreements
with the representatives and authorities of the Paez indigenous community of
northern Cauca for the purpose of completing its territory and guaranteeing its
self-determination by adjudication of lands and setting in motion an alternative
development plan. The report notes that those commitments have been partially
implemented.[7] On December 23, 1991, the State
undertook to purchase and transfer 15,663 hectares, of which only 5,296 hectares
had been purchased. In addition, on
May 14, 1992, it was agreed to carry out an Alternative Development Plan
consisting of 16 projects to be implemented in northern Cauca, although
financing had been obtained for only two of these. In view of these commitments, the Comité de Impulso urged the State to
implement them promptly and fully, and made some proposals to complement and
facilitate this process.[8] Finally, the Comité de Impulso asked the Commission,
independent of the processing and conclusion of Case 11.101, to stay abreast of
the developments on issues having to do with the territory and self-reliant
development of this community, and its potential impact on the occurrence of
future violent incidents and human rights violations.[9]
24.
As regards the Caloto massacre itself, the Comité made approximately 30
recommendations regarding further procedural steps, such as taking additional
statements from witnesses, incorporating evidence into the criminal proceedings
for the purpose of clarifying the facts, and trying and punishing the persons
responsible.[10] The recommendations regarding the
disciplinary proceedings were aimed at expediting the proceedings for the
purpose of determining the corresponding responsibilities and sanctions.[11] As for the proceedings in the
contentious-administrative jurisdiction, the Comité de Impulso urged the parties to
enter into settlement agreements.
2. The creation and work of the Comité de
Seguimiento
25.
In February 1996, during the Commission's 91st regular session, the
parties agreed to create the Committee to follow up on the recommendations
agreed upon by the Comité de Impulso
(hereinafter "Comité de
Seguimiento"). The mandate of
the Comité de Seguimiento was to: (a)
seek out, collect, centralize, and transmit to the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights information on the promotional measures agreed upon; (b) submit
periodic reports to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding the
development of its functions and the result thereof; (c) report to the
Commission on the obstacles encountered in the performance of its functions; and
(d) submit a report to the Commission at its next regular session regarding the
performance of the functions assigned to it, and on the results of the steps
taken, indicating the factors that, in the Committee's opinion, influenced their
success or failure.[12]
26.
The Comité de Seguimiento
submitted its assessment of compliance with implementation of the Comité de Impulso's recommendations on
October 7, 1997, during the 97th regular session of the Commission.[13] The Comité de Seguimiento received the
acknowledgment of the State's international responsibility as a positive
development, and concluded that there had been partial implementation of the Comité de Impulso’s
recommendations. It recommended
that the friendly settlement proceedings continue in connection with
recommendations that were being implemented or that were awaiting additional
administrative steps.
27.
As regards clarification of the facts in the case, the Report concluded
that there was impunity with respect to the National Police officials implicated
in the massacre, and that this was attributable to the action of the military
criminal courts. A similar
conclusion was reached in the disciplinary jurisdiction. As a result, the Comité de Seguimiento made
recommendations regarding the duty of the Colombian State to investigate, try in
the regular jurisdiction, and punish the persons responsible for the incidents
in question.
28.
In the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, the Comité de Seguimiento noted that
settlement agreements were reached in the pending proceedings. As for the social reparation measures,
it recommended full implementation of the agreements on adjudication of lands
through more expeditious procedures and within a reasonable time, in conjunction
with the indigenous communities. In
this regard, the Comité de
Seguimiento considered that transitory Article 56 of the Constitution
applies for purposes of making full reparation.[14] The Comité considered that the State had not
carried out its commitment to develop the legal procedure for the purchase and
adjudication of lands. With respect
to the projects of the Indigenous Alternative Development Plan for Cauca, it
determined that these projects were in the course of being carried out and that
no resources had been allocated for the others.[15]
29.
On October 16, 1997, the Commission issued a resolution in which it
acknowledged the parties' efforts to reach a friendly settlement in the case, as
well as the State's decision to recognize its international responsibility. The Commission also recommended that the
State make monetary reparation to the victims' families that had not been paid
compensation, pursuant to Law 288 of 1996. It also decided to continue to pursue
a friendly settlement until the subsequent regular session, after which it would
make a decision on its final processing of the case. To this end, the Commission
asked the parties to submit additional information on any progress on a possible
friendly settlement.
3.
Breakdown of the friendly settlement process and degree of compliance
with the commitments
30.
Given that it was not possible to carry out all the commitments of the
friendly settlement within the time frames agreed upon, this process was
considered concluded on October 5, 1998, during the hearing in the Commission's
100th regular session. The parties
asked the Commission to issue a ruling on the merits, and to duly acknowledge
the partial implementation of the recommendations made by the two Committees
created in the framework of the friendly settlement process. The parties indicated that this would
facilitate reparation for the surviving victim and the families of the victims
who were killed that have not yet been awarded compensation in the
contentious-administrative jurisdiction through the mechanism provided for in
Law 288/96.[16]
IV.
ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY
A.
Jurisdiction
31.
The Commission has jurisdiction to examine the claim submitted by the
petitioners. The facts alleged in
the petition affected natural persons subject to the jurisdiction of the State
when the obligation to respect and ensure the rights established in the
Convention had already come into force for the State.[17] The Commission proceeds, then, to
analyze whether this case meets the requirements established in Articles 46 and
47 of the American Convention.
B.
Admissibility requirements
1.
Exhaustion of domestic remedies and the time requirement for lodging a
petition
32.
Prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is a rule established in the
interests of the State and for its benefit; it can therefore be waived.[18] In this case, on July 29, 1998, the
State expressly acknowledged its responsibility for the incidents that are the
subject matter of this case; therefore, this requirement should be considered to
be met.[19]
33.
As regards compliance with the requirement of presenting the petition
within six months from notification of the final decision in the domestic
courts, it is linked to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and therefore is
not applicable to this case.
2.
Duplication of procedures and res
judicata
34.
It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the
petition is pending before any other international procedure for settlement, or
that it addresses the same matter as a petition already examined by this or any
other international organization.
Therefore, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of
the Convention have been met.
3.
Characterization of the facts alleged
35.
The Commission considers that the petitioners' allegations regarding the
alleged violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty,
as well as the lack of any effective punishment of the persons responsible and
the delay in the investigation, could characterize a violation of the rights
guaranteed at Articles 4, 5, 8, 25, and 1(1) of the American Convention. As it is not evident that these aspects
of the claim are groundless or inadmissible, especially as the State has
expressly recognized its responsibility, the Commission considers the
requirements established in Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention to
have been met.
C.
Conclusions on jurisdiction and admissibility
36.
The Commission considers that it has jurisdiction to examine the claim
submitted by the petitioners, and that this case is admissible pursuant to the
requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American
Convention.
V.
ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS IN LIGHT OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF STATE
RESPONSIBILITY
37.
Two preliminary issues must be addressed before moving on to analyze the
merits of the case. First, the
Commission must determine whether the alleged violations of the American
Declaration are properly before it.
In this regard, it should be noted that the American Convention entered
into force for Colombia on July 18, 1978.
Since then the Convention, and not the Declaration, became the source of
law applicable by the Commission[20] so long as the
claim refers to the alleged violation of rights that are substantially identical
in the two instruments, and not a continuing violation.[21] In this case, the rights allegedly
violated by the Colombian State under the Declaration are similarly protected
under the Convention, and the facts that were the basis for the petitioners'
claim occurred after the entry into force of the American Convention for
Colombia. Accordingly, the
Commission will refer only to the alleged violations of the Convention, and not
to the alleged violations of the Declaration.
38.
Second, the Commission should establish interpretative standards for its
own use, in light of the facts and the characteristics of the violations alleged
and acknowledged by the State in this case. Article 29(b) of the American Convention
provides that no provision of the Convention may be interpreted so as to limit
the enjoyment and exercise of any right recognized in any other treaty to which
the State in question is a party.[22] It should be noted in this connection
that Colombia is a party to ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
(hereinafter "Convention 169").[23]
39.
Article 2 of Convention 169 establishes the obligation of the States to
develop coordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of indigenous or
tribal peoples and to guarantee respect for their integrity. This action should include
measures:
(a)
ensuring that members of these peoples benefit on an equal footing from the
rights and opportunities which national laws and regulations grant to other
members of the population;
(b)
promoting the full realisation of the social, economic and cultural rights of
these peoples with respect for their social and cultural identity, their customs
and traditions and their institutions;
(c) assisting the members of the
peoples concerned to eliminate socio-economic gaps that may exist between
indigenous and other members of the national community, in a manner compatible
with their aspirations and ways of life.
Article 4 of Convention 169 provides that the
States Parties should adopt special measures as necessary to safeguard the
persons, institutions, property, labor, culture, and environment of these
peoples, and that such special measures should not be contrary to their freely
expressed wishes.
40.
In the Americas, standards have also been adopted that are to be taken
into account by the Commission, in analyzing the rights and the scope of the
State's obligations under the Convention.
The norm of interpretation set forth in Article 29(d) of the American
Convention establishes that the rights protected shall not be interpreted so as
to exclude or limit the effect of international acts similar in nature to the
American Declaration. In this
regard, it should be noted that the Inter-American Charter of Social Guarantees
of 1948 refers to the duty of the States to adopt the measures necessary to
protect the life, liberty, and property of the indigenous population.[24] The Commission itself, in its resolution
on "Special Protection for Indigenous Peoples," has recommended that the member
States adopt measures to ensure that their agents act with great diligence in
this task.[25]
41.
In the instant case, the Comité de
Impulso recognized that the events in the Caloto massacre affected the
entire Paez indigenous community in northern Cauca, and that the measures to be
adopted to make reparation for the damage should be preventive, and should
address the claims and grievances of that community.[26] Accordingly, in this case the Commission
considers it necessary to interpret the obligations established in the American
Convention in light of the special obligations to protect the life, physical
integrity, property, culture, environment, and labor of indigenous or tribal
peoples, as provided for in Convention 169, the Inter-American Charter of Social
Guarantees, and the resolution on "Special Protection for Indigenous Peoples."
A.
The right to life and physical integrity
42.
The report of the Comité de
Impulso indicates that on December 6, 1991, the company Sociedad Agropecuaria Piedra Blanca
Ltda., purchased the "El Nilo" property, knowing that it was inhabited by
indigenous persons who had effectively possessed part of the farm for
approximately four years. Once the
property was purchased, the company attempted to have the indigenous persons
abandon the land in exchange for the value of their rustic dwellings and of the
improvements made to the property.
After the offer was rejected, the indigenous persons became the victims
of harassment and pressure, including the destruction of some of their rustic
dwellings days before the massacre, to force them to leave the property. On December 16, 1991, a group of
individuals went to the main house of the "El Nilo" hacienda bearing arms that
are restricted to use by the armed forces and national police. Some of these individuals had their
faces painted, and others wore ski masks.
These individuals forced the victims to lie on the ground in a row, face
down, where they executed them.[27]
43.
The Comité de Impulso reached
the conclusion that there were clear indicia of the participation of the Police
in the massacre.[28] The State, for its part, considering the
conclusions resulting from the effort to reach friendly settlement, accepted its
international responsibility, as it acknowledged that its agents had committed
the acts.[29]
44.
Article 4(1) of the American Convention establishes that no one shall be
deprived of his or her life arbitrarily.
This obligation of the State should be interpreted in light of its duty
to afford special protection to the indigenous and tribal peoples who live in
its jurisdiction. The Commission
considers that the facts, as established by the Comité de Seguimiento, created by the
State and the petitioners under the auspices of the Commission--and as has been
acknowledged by the State--constitute a grave violation of the obligation to
guarantee the right of all persons to have their lives respected and of the
special duty to protect the members of the Paez indigenous community of northern
Cauca. The motivations for the massacre--to evict the indigenous persons from
the property on which they lived lawfully--and the method by which it was
carried out--identifying and executing the community leaders, with the clear
intent to terrify the remaining members--constitute a serious violation of the
State's international obligations pursuant to Article 4 of the American
Convention, in light of the controlling standards on special
protection.
45.
As appears from the disciplinary investigation, Mr. Jairo Llamo Ascué
suffered a gunshot wound in his right arm during the episode. The Commission considers this to
constitute a violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, which
establishes the right of all persons to respect for their physical, mental, and
moral integrity.[30]
46.
Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and of law, and in view of
the recognition of State responsibility, the Commission concludes that on
December 16, 1991, a group of civilians acting jointly with agents of the
National Police arbitrarily deprived the following persons of the right to
life: Darío Coicué Fernández,
Ofelia Tombé Vitonas, Carolina Tombé Ñusque, Adán Mestizo Rivera, Edgar Mestizo
Rivera, Eleuterio Dicué Calambas, Mario Julicué Ul (or Mario Julico), Tiberio
Dicué Corpus, María Jesús Guetia Pito (or María Jesusa Güeitía), Floresmiro
Dicué Mestizo, Mariana Mestizo Corpus, Nicolás Consa Hilamo (or Nicolás Conda),
Otoniel Mestizo Dagua (or Otoniel Mestizo Corpus), Feliciano Otela Ocampo (or
Feliciano Otela Campo), Calixto Chilgüezo Toconas (or Calixto Chilgüeso), Julio
Dagua Quiguanas, José Jairo Secué Canas, Jesús Albeiro Pilcué Pete, Daniel Gugu
Pete (or Daniel Pete) and Domingo
Cáliz Soscué (or Domingo Cálix Sescué) and wounded Jairo Llamo Ascué, at the "El
Nilo" hacienda, district of El Palo, municipality of Caloto, in violation of the
obligations established at Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on
Human Rights in light of the special duty to protect indigenous
populations.
B.
The right to judicial protection and the State's obligation to respect
and ensure the rights protected by the Convention
47.
As arises from the information provided by the parties, as well as the
report by the Comité de Seguimiento,
the Public Order Court of Investigation of Cali initiated the investigation in
December 1991, and determined that National Police Maj. Jorge Enrique Durán
Argüelles, who had been commander of the Police district of Santander de
Quilichao, and Captain Fabio Alejandro Castañeda Mateus, Head of Antinarcotics
of Santander de Quelichao were, implicated in the incident. On April 7, 1992, the Public Order
Investigative Judge of Cali refrained from issuing measures to ensure the
officers' appearance at trial. The Public Ministry representative appealed this
decision, but it was affirmed on appeal. On January 28, 1994, the investigating
judge determined the charges and it was decided to continue the investigation
into National Police officers Maj. Jorge Enrique Durán Argüelles and Capt. Fabio
Alejandro Castañeda Mateus, and civilians Orlando Villa Zapata, Leonardo
Peñafiel Correa, Edgar Antonio Arévalo Peláez, and Nicolás Quintero
Zuluaga. Some of the civilians
chose to “plea bargain” and were found guilty of the crimes of homicide,
attempted homicide, arson, and illegal possession of weapons restricted to use
by the armed forces and police. On
September 4, 1996, the prosecutor in the case, under the Human Rights Unit,
assessed the merits of the investigation and handed down an indictment against
officers Jorge Enrique Durán Argüelles and Fabio Alejandro Castañeda Mateus for
multiple homicide in a combination of a series of related criminal acts (“concurso real homogéneo heterogéneo")
and as co-perpetrators responsible for the offenses of attempted homicide,
illegal possession of arms restricted to use by the armed forces and police, and
damage to the property of another.
That decision was appealed and affirmed on appeal.
48.
In February 1997, the Court of First Instance of the National Police
asserted its jurisdiction.
Accordingly, by resolution of March 1997, the regional judges of Cali
forwarded the proceeding to the military criminal courts. The appeal of this decision was declared
inadmissible. In September 1997,
the military courts as a nullity all the proceedings in the regular
jurisdiction, revoked the orders to take measures to ensure the appearance at
trial against the Police officers accused, and ordered the unconditional release
of Capt. Alejandro Castañeda Mateus, the only member of the Police who was
detained. The civil party requested
that the case be sent back to the regular courts, pursuant to Judgment C-358 of
the Constitutional Court of Colombia, which provides that cases involving
serious human rights violations must be judged in that jurisdiction. This request was dismissed by the
military criminal judge. The
Commission has learned that finally, on July 26, 1999, the Superior Military
Tribunal ruled to cease all proceedings against Maj. Durán Argüelles and Capt.
Castañeda Mateus.
49.
It should be noted that the Office of Special Investigations of the
Office of the Procurator General began the disciplinary investigation on January
10, 1992, as a result of an evaluative report by the Public Order Judge of Cali
on October 22, 1992, which established that "the evidence collected ... provides
serious indicia that National Police officers Maj. Jorge Enrique Durán Argüelles
and Capt. Fabio Alejandro Castañeda Mateus had relations with persons who
planned to terrify a group of indigenous persons in the Paez Community, one of
them directing, the other participating directly. There are sufficient grounds for opening
a formal disciplinary inquiry into the Police officers."[31] The inquiry was forwarded to the
Delegate Procurator for Human Rights, who drew up a list of charges against Maj.
Durán Argüelles and Capt. Fabio Alejandro Castañeda Mateus on December 18,
1992. On July 8, 1993, a ruling was
handed down exonerating these individuals of disciplinary liability. On August 10, 1993, the Human Rights
Ombudsman submitted considerations on this resolution and asked that the
Procurator General study the possibility of reversing it. On August 14, 1996, the Office of the
Presidential Adviser for Human Rights and the Ministry of Interior joined in the
request. On September 30, 1997, the
Procurator General informed the Comité de
Seguimiento that the matter was currently before his office. Nonetheless, in its final report, the
Comité noted the fact that five years after the massacre, it was not possible to
bring additional actions. As a
result, one must conclude that the officers implicated have not been and
apparently will not be subject to any disciplinary sanction whatsoever.[32]
50.
The victims’ family members submitted claims for compensation in the
contentious-administrative jurisdiction.
The State carried out the recommendation of the Comité de Impulso that it enter into
settlement agreements in these proceedings.[33] Nonetheless, the
agreements were challenged by the persons who were notified of a suit pending
for which they may be potentially liable (i.e., the police agents). Even though the Council of State had
decided that the challenge was inadmissible, the Commission has no indication
that the agreements were carried out. Accordingly, the victims' family members
may not have actually been paid compensation.
51.
The petitioners allege that the State has breached its duties to
investigate the facts in the case, and to try and punish the persons responsible
pursuant to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. The Comité de Seguimiento, for its part,
concluded in its final report that the impunity of the members of the National
Police responsible for the massacre is attributable to the action of the
military criminal justice system.[34] The Commission must determine whether
the judicial activity of the State--which has extended over eight years and has
been developed largely in the military and disciplinary jurisdictions--meets the
standards established by the American Convention. Article 8(1)
establishes:
Every
person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable
time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously
established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature
... for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor,
fiscal, or any other nature.
Article 25 provides:
1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by the Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.
2. The States Parties
undertake:
a. to ensure that any person
claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority
provided for by the legal system of the state;
b. to develop the possibilities of
judicial remedy;
c. to ensure that the competent
authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
These norms establish the obligation to provide
access to justice with the guarantees of legality, independence, and
impartiality within a reasonable time and with due protections, as well as the
general obligation to provide an effective judicial remedy in the face of the
violation of fundamental rights, incorporating the principle of the
effectiveness of the procedural instruments or mechanisms. As the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights (hereinafter "the Court") has indicated,
States
Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of
human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in
accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8(1)), all in keeping with
the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of
the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their
jurisdiction.[35]
52.
The State acknowledged its international responsibility for the acts of
its agents in relation to the massacre.
Nonetheless, eight years after the fact, criminal responsibility has been
established in respect of only some of the civilians implicated. The Commission notes that even though an
investigation was begun into the members of the National Police implicated in
the massacre, after a jurisdictional challenge the case was transferred to the
military criminal justice system.
53.
The Commission must point out that in the cases in which the violation of
a protected right results in the commission of conduct considered a criminal
offense under domestic law, the victims or their family members have the right
to have a regular court determine promptly and effectively the identity of the
persons responsible, try them, and impose the corresponding punishment, and for
the punishment to be effectively carried out. These cases clearly require a
criminal proceeding that includes a criminal investigation and criminal
sanctions, as well as the possibility of reparation.
54.
In the instant case, the trial of the officers implicated in the massacre
of the 20 members of the Paez indigenous community of northern Cauca was
transferred to the military criminal justice system. In that jurisdiction, all proceedings in
the regular justice system were decreed null and void, and in July 1999 the
Superior Military Tribunal decided to cease all proceedings against the accused,
Maj. Durán Argüelles and Capt. Castañeda Mateus.
55.
The Commission has repeatedly stated that given its nature and structure,
the military criminal jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of
independence and impartiality set out in Article 8 of the American
Convention. The inadequacy of the
military criminal courts as a forum for investigating, trying, and punishing
cases involving human rights violations has already been the subject of a
pronouncement by the Commission:
The
military criminal justice system has several unique characteristics which
prevent access to an effective and impartial judicial remedy in that
jurisdiction. First, the military
justice system may not even be properly referred to as a true judicial
forum. The military justice system
does not form part of the judicial branch of the Colombian State. Rather, this jurisdiction is operated by
the public security forces and, as such, falls within the executive branch. The decision-makers are not trained
judges, and the Office of the Prosecutor General does not fulfill its accusatory
role in the military justice system.[36]
In its decision of August 5, 1997, the Constitutional Court of Colombia
established that:
For
the military criminal justice system to have jurisdiction over an offense, there
must be, from the beginning, a clear link between the offense and the activities
particular to military service. In
other words, the punishable act must constitute an excess or an abuse of power
that takes place in the context of an activity directly related to a legitimate
function of the armed forces. The
nexus between the criminal act and the activity related to military service is
broken when the offense is extremely grave, as in the case of crimes against
humanity. In such circumstances, the case must be removed to the civilian
justice system.[37]
56.
The Commission considers that the massacre of 20 members of an indigenous
community in order to evict them from the property they inhabited on the "El
Nilo" hacienda in the municipality of Caloto cannot be considered part of the
legitimate functions of security force agents. Accordingly, the trial of accused in the
military criminal jurisdiction constitutes a violation of the right to judicial
protection and of the guarantees of impartiality of the court enshrined in
Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention.
57.
The lack of an adequate and effective remedy to address the violation of
rights recognized in the Convention is itself a violation of the
Convention. Judicial remedies and
mechanisms must not only be provided for formally in the legislation, but must
be effective and swift in establishing whether there has been a violation of
human rights, and in making reparation for the consequences. The Inter-American Court has established
that:
If the
State apparatus acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the
victim's full enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the
State has failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of
those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction.[38]
58.
The Commission concludes that after eight years, the State has not
adequately and effectively investigated or tried and punished its agents for
their criminal liability in the Caloto massacre.
59.
The judicial protection that the State has a duty to provide also
includes the duty to make reparation to the victims or their family members for
the consequences of the violations experienced. The surviving victim and the family
members of the deceased victims have a right to reparation that includes
monetary compensation for the harm inflicted. According to the information provided by
the parties and collected during the friendly settlement process, a series of
settlement agreements were reached in the proceedings brought in the
contentious-administrative jurisdiction that have yet to be implemented. In the framework of the friendly
settlement process, the State also undertook to carry out commitments to make
social reparation involving the assignment of lands to the Paez indigenous
community. These commitments are in
the process of being carried out.
Specifically, a budget item of 1.5 billion Colombian pesos was to be
earmarked for the purchase of lands in the current year, and one billion pesos
for next year.
60.
Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, the Commission
concludes that the State has failed to carry out its obligation to offer
adequate judicial protection pursuant to Articles 8 and 25 of the American
Convention. Furthermore, the State
has partially carried out its obligation to clarify the facts and to make
reparation to the family members of the deceased victims and to the Paez
indigenous community of northern Cauca.
C.
Duty to respect and ensure the rights protected by the
Convention
61.
Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States
Parties to:
respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.
The Court has interpreted this
obligation to include the duty to organize the structures by which public
authority is exercised so that they are capable of legally assuring to all
persons the free and full exercise of their fundamental rights.[39] The Court has established that Article
1(1), in relation to Article 25, obliges the State to guarantee to all persons
access to the administration of justice, and in particular to prompt and simple
recourse for ensuring that the persons responsible for violations of fundamental
rights are tried, and that reparation is obtained for the harm suffered. These norms are directly related to
Article 8(1), which enshrines the right of all persons to be heard, with due
guarantees, and within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial judge
or court, for determining rights whatever their nature. These obligations are basic pillars of
the rule of law in a democratic society, as understood by the Convention.[40]
62.
In this case, the State has failed in its obligation to try and punish
the persons responsible for the massacre, pursuant to the standards of Articles
8(1) and 25. Nonetheless, it has partially carried out its obligation to
guarantee that the case be resolved.
Specifically, it has participated actively in the Comité de Impulso and the Comité de Seguimiento, which were
installed as part of the effort to reach a friendly settlement in this case, and
in the production of reports that have helped to clarify the facts, individual
responsibilities, and the difficulties in judicial investigations. In addition, it has partially carried
out its duty to guarantee due reparation to the family members of the victims by
promoting the settlement agreements in the contentious-administrative
jurisdiction, and the process of implementing the projects for making social
reparation to the Paez indigenous community of northern Cauca.
63.
As the Inter-American Court has indicated, the States Parties to the
American Convention have the legal duty to reasonably prevent human rights
violations,[41] and this duty
"includes all those means of a legal, political, administrative and cultural
nature that promote the protection of human rights."[42] The Commission considers that there are
grounds for concluding that the State failed to carry out its duty to prevent,
in conjunction with the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the
Convention. The information
provided by the parties indicates that more than one week prior to the massacre,
on December 7, 1991, members of the Paez indigenous community denounced the
threats directed at them and requested protection from the authorities.[43] The Office of Special Investigations of
the Office of the Procurator General indicated:
As the
indigenous persons refused to reach an agreement, they were threatened,
according to their assertions ... by the alleged representative of the purchaser
company, Gilberto Márquez, who was apparently accompanied by a group of armed
men. Faced with this situation, the
indigenous persons informed the mayor and the municipal ombudsman; and in a
meeting held in the village of El Carrizal, they informed the Regional Manager
of INCORA and the Secretary of the Municipal Government as to the
situation. This was corroborated by
the mayor and municipal ombudsman in their statements […].[44]
This fact has been corroborated by the report
prepared by a delegation from the Colombian Congress that traveled to the Caloto
region in January 1992, which stated:
The
Government of Cauca was informed in a timely manner, by the indigenous community
of the Resguardo de Huellas, of the grave threats to their integrity, yet it did
not take any measure to protect them.
It was, as the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca has called it, "a
death foretold."[45]
64.
Consequently, the State authorities were aware of the imminent risk to
the Paez indigenous community of northern Cauca, yet failed to adopt the
measures necessary for protecting their fundamental rights, leaving the victims
defenseless and facilitating their subsequent extrajudicial execution.[46] Days later, state agents participated in
perpetrating the serious violations of the right to life and physical integrity
foreshadowed by the threats. The
Commission considers that these incidents constitute serious omissions in
respect of the duty to prevent violations of fundamental rights provided for in
the American Convention, and to offer special protection to the indigenous
communities.
65.
Based on these elements of fact and law, the Commission concludes that
the Colombian State has failed in its duty to prevent the violation of and to
ensure respect for the victims' rights to life, personal liberty, and humane
treatment, as well as their right to judicial protection, pursuant to Article
1(1) of the Convention, in light of the obligation to offer special protection
to the Paez indigenous community of northern Cauca.
66.
On September 28, 1999, the Commission approved Report 114/99, pursuant to
Article 50 of the American Convention.
In that Report the Commission, based on the information collected during
this process, and in view of the acknowledgment of responsibility by the
Republic of Colombia, concluded that State agents, together with a group of
civilians, violated the right to life of Darío Coicué Fernández, Ofelia Tombé
Vitonas, Carolina Tombé Ñusque, Adán Mestizo Rivera, Edgar Mestizo Rivera,
Eleuterio Dicué Calambas, Mario Julicué Ul (or Mario Julico), Tiberio Dicué
Corpus, María Jesús Guetia Pito (or María Jesusa Güeitía), Floresmiro Dicué
Mestizo, Mariana Mestizo Corpus, Nicolás Consa Hilamo (or Nicolás Conda),
Otoniel Mestizo Dagua (or Otoniel Mestizo Corpus), Feliciano Otela Ocampo (or
Feliciano Otela Campo), Calixto Chilgüezo Toconas (or Calixto Chilgüeso), Julio
Dagua Quiguanas, José Jairo Secué Canas, Jesús Albeiro Pilcué Pete, Daniel Gugu
Pete (or Daniel Pete), and Domingo
Cáliz Soscué (or Domingo Cálix Sescué), the right to physical integrity of Jairo
Llamo Ascué, and the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection of all
of them, pursuant to Articles 5(1) and (2), 8, and 25 of the American
Convention. The Commission also
concluded that the State had partially failed in its duty to ensure these rights
and to take the necessary measures to prevent their violation, pursuant to
Article 1(1) of the Convention. In
addition, it recommended that the State:
"(1) carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation, in the
regular jurisdiction, in order to try and punish the persons responsible for the
massacre. (2) Adopt the necessary measures to make
reparations to Jairo Llamo Ascué, and to the victims' family members who had not
yet been compensated. (3) Adopt the measures necessary to carry
out the commitments relating to social reparation for the Paez indigenous
community of northern Cauca.
(4) Adopt the measures
necessary to prevent similar events in the future, in keeping with the duty of
prevention and to guarantee the fundamental rights recognized in the American
Convention. (5) To adopt the measures necessary to fully
implement the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by
this Commission in the investigation and trial of similar cases by the regular
criminal justice system."
67.
On October 19, 1999, the Commission forwarded the Report to the State,
giving it two months to comply with these recommendations. On December 20, 1999, the State
requested an extension to submit information on implementation of the
recommendations, which was duly granted.
Finally, on January 24, 2000, the State submitted information on
implementation of the commitments agreed upon in the framework of the effort to
achieve friendly settlement.
68.
First, the State reported that it had fully complied with 21 of the 31
recommendations made by the Comité de
Impulso in the area of criminal justice. It stated that it had partially complied
with one more recommendation, that it failed to comply with four, and that it
had no information on the remaining six.
In terms of the proceedings before the criminal military courts, the
State argued that the cases against Jorge Durán Argüelles and Fabio Alejandro
Castañeda Mateus, which were on appeal before the Superior Military Court, were
resolved on July 22, 1999, with a cessation of proceedings favoring the
accused. It also noted that the
civil party in the proceedings had refrained from pursuing any remedy, even
though it was possible to request a confirmation of the judgment of first
instance denying the cessation of proceedings, and argue a jurisdictional
conflict before the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior de la
Judicatura). In terms of the
proceedings before the regular courts, the State indicated that convictions were
secured against Second Corporal Pedro Pablo Agredo Montilla and police agents
Edgar Montoya Ojeda, Luis Ernesto Soto Cardona, and Héctor Marín Mejía; and Luis
Alberto Bernal Seijas, Orlando Villa Zapata, Neimberg Marín Z., Carlos Alberto
Flórez Alarcón, and Leonardo Peñafiel Correa, all private individuals, who, it
is argued, are in confinement, except for Mr. Alberto Bernal Seijas, who has yet
to be detained, and Mr. Orlando Villa Zapata, who was said to have escaped from
the Vista Hermosa prison in Cali in mid-1998. This escape was said to be under
investigation by the Unit of Crimes against the Administration of Justice, of
the Office of the Prosecutor General for Cali. In addition, an investigation is under
way into Mr. Carlos Mario Vásquez Velásquez, who has yet to appear before the
authorities.
69.
With respect to the six recommendations of the Comité de Impulso as regards the
disciplinary proceedings, the State indicated that four of them were complied
with fully, one partially, and the other was not implemented. The disciplinary proceedings in which
decisions were pending were resolved to the benefit of the persons
investigated. In addition, the
State noted that according to information provided by the National Police, in
October 1997 Messrs. Alcibiades Escué and Ancízar Bolaños asked the Office of
the Procurator General to open a disciplinary investigation into Brig. Gen. Hugo
Rafael Martínez Poveda and others.
In March 1998 the Office of the Procurator General decided to archive the
complaint, considering that it did not refer to a disciplinary breach.
70.
In terms of the Comité de
Impulso's recommendation to enter into settlement agreements in the
contentious-administrative proceedings, the State notes that some of the
compensation acknowledged was processed via the application of Law 288 of
1996. In effect, the Committee of
Ministers issued Resolution Number 3 of 1997, in light of the recommendations of
the Inter-American Commission during its 97th session. The State reported that of a total of 16
claims filed with the Administrative Tribunal of Cauca, settlements were reached
in 11, and partial settlements in five. In three of these proceedings, there was
no settlement since the guardians ad
litem of the minors involved lacked the corresponding judicial
authorization, and for that reason, it was said, they were still pending a
decision. It also confirmed that a
hearing was held to reach a settlement in the Administrative Tribunal of Cauca
in January 1998, as a result of which notice was sent to Maj. Jorge Enrique
Durán Argüelles and Capt. Fabio Alejandro Castañeda Mateus informing them of
suits for which they may be potentially liable. These officers filed an appeal before
the Council of State against the measure fully approving the settlement. On December 9, 1998, the Council of
State denied the motion and affirmed the first-instance judgment.
71.
The State confirmed that neither Mr. Jairo Llamo Ascué--a survivor of the
massacre who, as was determined, was wounded--nor any of the family members is
registered as a plaintiff in the actions brought before the Administrative
Tribunal of Cauca, nor in the settlements under Law 288 of 1996. The State also argues these individuals
do not appear on the list contained in the request for settlement payment
submitted by the Corporación Colectivo de
Abogados "José Alvear Restrepo" to the Ministry of Defense on September 23,
1999.
72.
In terms of the recommendations of the Comité de Impulso in respect of social
reparation, the State argued that they have met with partial compliance, and
that some are still being implemented.
Specifically, the State argues that the procedure for purchase and
adjudication is under way, and that some lands will gradually begin to be
purchased. The State noted that
there were legal difficulties in the disbursement of the resources allocated,
and in identifying property owners in the region willing to sell their
lands. It reported that to date a
total of 6,877,829 hectares had been purchased, and that 8,778,171 hectares
remained to be purchased. It
affirms that the General Bureau for Indigenous Affairs of the Ministry of
Interior continues the task of searching for properties, and it trusts that
during the first months of the year it would be purchased. Regarding the development of the works
agreed upon in the Indigenous Alternative Development Plan for Cauca, the State
indicated that most of the projects proposed have been carried out, and that
four remain to be implemented for which the contracts are pending legalization
before the Contracts Unit of the Administrative Department, Office of the Vice
President of the Republic.
73.
Finally, the State highlighted the importance and value of friendly
settlement as a mechanism which, in this particular case, made possible major
accomplishments in some of the areas addressed during the process, and
acknowledged the will and commitment of the parties. In addition, it was agreed
to continue to take and foster initiatives aimed at complying with the
Commission's recommendations.
VII.
CONCLUSIONS
74.
The Commission wishes to express its acknowledgment of the effort made by
petitioners and the Colombian State to solve this case by way of friendly
settlement, and laments that this procedure broke down in its final stages. In view of the information received
during this process, the recognition of state responsibility by the Republic of
Colombia, and its response, the Commission reiterates its conclusion that State
agents, together with a group of civilians, violated the right to life of Darío
Coicué Fernández, Ofelia Tombé Vitonas, Carolina Tombé Ñusque, Adán Mestizo
Rivera, Edgar Mestizo Rivera, Eleuterio Dicué Calambas, Mario Julicué Ul (or
Mario Julico), Tiberio Dicué Corpus, María Jesús Guetia Pito (or María Jesusa
Güeitía), Floresmiro Dicué Mestizo, Mariana Mestizo Corpus, Nicolás Consa Hilamo
(or Nicolás Conda), Otoniel Mestizo Dagua (or Otoniel Mestizo Corpus), Feliciano
Otela Ocampo (or Feliciano Otela Campo), Calixto Chilgüezo Toconas (or Calixto
Chilgüeso), Julio Dagua Quiguanas, José Jairo Secué Canas, Jesús Albeiro Pilcué
Pete, Daniel Gugu Pete (or Daniel
Pete), and Domingo Cáliz Soscué (or Domingo Cálix Sescué), the right to physical
integrity of Jairo Llamo Ascué, and the right to judicial guarantees and
judicial protection of all of them, pursuant to Articles 5(1) and (2), 8, and 25
of the American Convention. The
Commission also concludes that the State partially failed in its duty to
guarantee these rights and to take the necessary measures to prevent their
violation, in light of Article 1(1) of the Convention.
VIII.
RECOMMENDATIONS
75.
Based on the analysis and conclusions of this Report,
1.
To carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation in the
regular justice system for the purpose of trying and punishing the persons
responsible for the massacre.
2.
To adopt the measures necessary to make reparation to Jairo Llamo Ascué,
as well as the victims' family members who have yet to be
compensated.
3.
To adopt the measures necessary to carry out the commitments regarding
social reparations on behalf of the Paez indigenous community of northern
Cauca.
4.
To adopt the measures necessary to prevent similar events from recurring,
in keeping with the duty to prevent and to ensure the fundamental rights
recognized in the American Convention.
5.
To adopt the measures necessary to implement fully the doctrine developed
by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by this Commission in the
investigation and trial of similar cases by the regular criminal justice
system.
IX.
PUBLICATION
76.
On February 24, 2000 the Commission transmitted Report 2/00 adopted pursuant to Article
50 of the American Convention to the petitioners and to the State, and granted
one month to the State to submit information on compliance with the
aforementioned recommendations. On
March 23, 2000 the State requested an extension which was duly granted by the
Commission. The State finally
submitted its response through a communication dated March 31, 2000.
77.
As far as the reparation of the surviving victim is concerned, the State
informed the Commission that the Committee for Judicial Defense of the National
Ministry of the Defense would consider the possibility of compensating Mr. Jairo
Llamo Ascué pursuant to Law 288 of 1996.
It must be noted once Report 2/00 was adopted, the petitioners informed
the Commission that at the time of the events, Mr. Ascué had apparently decided
not to file a complaint before the administrative courts due to the state of
fear caused by the violent acts which had occurred in the present case. As far as the rest of the victims’
families are concerned, the State reported that a conciliatory hearing with the
purpose of evaluating the situation of a new list of complainants in the Caloto
case had been scheduled. In
relation to the Comité de Impulso’s
recommendation regarding the acquisition of land for the Paez indigenous
community of Northern Cauca, the State informed the Commission that $
1.000.000.000.00 had been approved for the present fiscal year to execute the
project “Acquisition of land for indigenous communities affected by “El Nilo”
massacre, Agreement of La María Piendamó” (15.663 hectares), and that the
General Bureau for Indigenous Matters would be involved in taking the
corresponding steps. At the same
time, the projects that were being legalized by the Administrative Department of
the Presidency of the Republic would also be in their execution stage. The State also referred to measures
adopted to ensure the future application of the Constitutional Court’s and the
Commission’s case law regarding the investigation and trial of facts similar to
those that occurred in Caloto before the civilian courts.
78.
In the light of the above, and pursuant to Articles 51(3) of the American
Convention and Article 48 of its Regulations, the Commission decides to
reiterate the conclusions reached in paragraph 74 and its recommendations, to
publish this Report and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly
of the OAS. The Commission, in
compliance with its mandate shall continue evaluating the measures adopted by
the Colombian State with respect to the aforementioned recommendations until
they have been complied with.
Done in signed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at the 13 day of the month of April 2000 (Signed:), Hélio Bicudo, Chairman; Claudio Grossman, First Vice-Chairman; Juan E. Méndez, Second Vice-Chairman; Marta Altolaguirre; Robert K. Goldman; Peter Laurie; and Julio Prado Vallejo, Commissioners.
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]
[1]
Communications of June 10, 1993 and March 9, 1994.
[2]
Communications of October 5, 1994 and May 12, 1995.
[3]
Informe Final del Comité de Coordinación para el Seguimiento de las
Recomendaciones acordadas por el Comité de Impulso a la Administración de
Justicia en los casos de Los Uvos, Caloto y Villatina, submitted at the hearing
held in the 97th regular session of the Inter-American Commission, p. 19.
[4]
Speech by the President of the Republic in the act of recognition of state
responsibility in the violent events at Villatina, Caloto, Los Uvos, and the
cases of Roison Mora and Faride Herrera.
[5]
Act of Understanding signed September 7, 1995, by Carlos Vicente de Roux,
Presidential Adviser for Human Rights, on behalf of the State, and María
Victoria Fallon, Gustavo Gallón Giraldo, and the Colectivo de Abogados "José Alvear
Restrepo" on behalf of the petitioners before the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights. Commissioners
Claudio Grossman and Leo Valladares participated as qualified observers, on
behalf of the Commission.
[6]
The Comité de Impulso also included
the Bureau of Indigenous Affairs of the Ministry of Interior of Colombia, the
Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca (CRIC), and the mothers of the victims in
the Villatina massacre, as observers.
[7]
Informe Final del Comité de Impulso a la Administración de Justicia en los casos
de Los Uvos, Caloto y Villatina, p. 142.
[8]
The proposals made were: 1. To
issue a presidential decree containing:
(a) The order to expand the territory of the Paez people by 10,367
hectares, which was the amount in the land purchase plan that was part of the
December 23, 1991 agreement.
(b) The allocation of
resources specially earmarked for the Agrarian Reform Institute (INCORA) to
provide for that purchase. (c) The establishment of a special emergency
process for those purchases.
(d) The declaration of the
areas for expanding the territories to be purchased as an "agricultural reserve
for food crops" to rebuild the traditional Paez economy. 2.
To expedite immediately the Paez people's Alternative Development Plan,
in accordance with the commitment taken on by the government of Colombia,
through the funds of the National Co-financing System, and to establish a
procedure for that purpose.
[9]
Informe Final del Comité de Impulso a la
Administración de Justicia en los casos de Los Uvos, Caloto y Villatina,
submitted at the hearing held in the 91st regular session of the Inter-American
Commission, p. 143.
[10]
The main recommendations regarding criminal justice made in the Informe final del Comité de Impulso a la
Administración de Justicia en los casos de Los Uvos, Caloto y Villatina,
submitted at the hearing in the 91st regular session of the Inter-American
Commission, are as follows: (a)
Verify the existence of the alleged documents regarding the supposed search of
the La Josefina farm (under the command of Lt. Marín, of the Third Brigade of
Cali), days before the massacre, and introduce copies into the proceedings. Carry out the procedures needed to
determine the full identity of Lt. Marín and hear his sworn version. (b) Introduce into the investigation the
bills, from the telecommunications company, showing long-distance phone calls
made from the telephones of the persons involved in the incident, and from the
Police Command at Santander de Quilichao, from October 1991 to March 1992. (c) Take further declarations from members
of the García Ciclos indigenous community, to state whether Maj. Jorge Enrique
Durán Argüelles, Capt. Fabio Alejandro Castañeda Mateus, or other upper-level
commanders knew that the two police agents had been at the Canaima, La Selvita,
and La Selva farms. And in
addition, to carry out the procedures necessary to identify fully the police,
their rank, commanding officers, and offices to which they were assigned. To take sworn statements from them. (d) To inquire into the checking and savings
accounts in the name of Jorge Enrique Durán Argüelles and Fabio Alejandro
Castañeda Mateus, in the banking and savings institutions of the country,
attaching excerpts, statements of account, deposit receipts, and origin of
transfers. With the cooperation of
the Property Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General, investigate the
origins or possible increases in the property of these officers, in their names
or in the names of third persons, and determine the possible relationship
between these incidents and the purpose of the Caloto massacre. (e) Determine whether Luis Alberto Bernal
Seijas has or has not had links to the official sector, specifically the
military or police forces, in what capacity or status, and when. Request copies, from the Office of the
Prosecutor General before the Regional Justice Courts (Fiscalía Regional) of
Cali, of the record in the preliminary investigation against Luis Alberto Bernal
Seijas, José Antonio Bernal Seijas, and Liliana Díaz Cadena, for the alleged
crime of illicit enrichment.
(f) Determine the book in
which the record of the entry and exit of persons from the institution is
kept. Verify whether the book used
for this purpose exists and whether it includes persons who entered the police
station on December 16. (g) Do the
intelligence work needed to establish the nature of the links between officers
Durán Argüelles and Castañeda Mateus and the declarants (the President of the
Council and the Secretary for Municipal Government) to determine the probative
value of their versions. (h) Receive the statements from all agents
who were on duty the day of the incident at the police stations at Santander de
Quilichao and Caloto, in order to determine the tasks carried out in the days
leading up to and after December 16, 1991, the activities of Capt. Castañeda
Mateus and Maj. Durán Argüelles, among others. (i) Ask the National Police to provide a
copy of the record of the steps taken in the internal investigation carried out
by the National Police, and to introduce them into the record. (j) Inquire into the course of the criminal
investigation in the death of Mr. Valencia Vacca (alleged purchaser of the
Hacienda El Nilo), who was murdered the day after the massacre, and attach
copies thereof to the record.
(k) Take the statement from
the member of the National Police who warned indigenous community member Lino
Adrián Zapata of the imminence of an attack on his community. (l) Further question Maj. Durán Argüelles
and Capt. Fabio Alejandro Castañeda on the circumstances of time, manner and
place in which the criminal acts were planned and executed. (m) Reiterate the arrest warrants for Carlos
Vahos Mejía and Luis Alberto Bernal Seijas, and call on the authorities
entrusted with the execution of those orders to report on the steps taken to
that effect. (n) Evaluate the
security situation of each of the witnesses in the process and, together with
the Office for Witness Protection and Human Rights of the Ministry of Interior,
study the possibility of including them in these programs. (o) Request information from the Office
of Special Investigations of the Office of the Procurator General as to the
status of the investigation that office is carrying out into the death of
attorney Oscar Elías López, legal adviser to the CRIC, who was advising the
indigenous community in the investigation of the massacre.
[11]
The following recommendations were made with respect to the disciplinary
proceedings: (a) Request information from the Office of
the Procurator General for the Department of Cauca as to whether that office did
or did not carry out a disciplinary investigation into the mayor and the
municipal ombudsman. If so, what
was the result. If there was no
such investigation, request that the Delegate Procurator for Human Rights assume
the investigation because of the dilatory and negligent attitude of those
officials; (b) request the Procurator General of the Nation to provide
information on the results of the petition brought by the Human Rights Ombudsman
on August 10, 1993, in which he asked that a Public Order Commission be formed
to study the possibility of directly reversing the ruling of the Delegate
Procurator for Human Rights of July 8, 1993, that exonerated the National Police
officials of the accusations against them; (c) reiterate to the Procurator
General the need to directly reverse the ruling in the terms requested by the
Human Rights Ombudsman. (d)
Reiterate to the Office of the Procurator General the request for information on
the punishment of members of the National Police questioned about their ties of
friendship with some of the direct perpetrators and planners of the massacre,
and for covering up irregular relationships. And insist on a pronouncement on the
merits as soon as possible. (e)
Request the Delegate Procurator for Human Rights to forward the investigation
into alleged torture, to determine the impact it may have had on the decision of
July 8, 1993, by which the Delegate Procurator for Human Rights exonerated the
National Police officers of the charges against them. A more in-depth effort should be
undertaken to clear up the facts regarding the omissions, which presumably
constitutes a disciplinary breach, of the mayor and the municipal ombudsman, as
the statements in the record incriminate them. The mayor, in his presentation,
recognizes at least the dilatory attitude and negligence in the failure to call
for the intervention and assistance of other authorities who could have impeded
the aggressiveness that culminated in the genocide. (f) Request the Delegate Procurator for
Agrarian Matters, the Office of the Procurator General for the Department of
Cauca, and the Office of the Procurator General for the Province of Santander de
Quilichao to send the results of the disciplinary investigations undertaken into
the events at Caloto, and the Delegate Procurator for Human Rights on the
legality of the land titles. (g) Request the Office of the Procurator General of
the Nation to culminate its investigation into Ms. Tahí Barrios Hernández,
Delegate Procurator for Human Rights, for the alleged irregularities committed
in the performance of her duties in the Caloto One disciplinary investigation,
in accordance with the considerations of the Human Rights Ombudsman in his
request for a Direct Reversal of the Ruling, and the arguments contained in the
complaint submitted by former Senator Anatolio Quirá and members of the
CRIC.
[12]
Acta de entendimiento que crea el Comité
de Coordinación para el seguimiento de las recomendaciones acordadas por el
Comité de Impulso para la Administración de Justicia en los casos de Los Uvos,
Caloto y Villatina.
[13]
For reasons of internal organization, the Comité de Seguimiento did not submit its
report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the date set. In
addition, it faced operational problems such as budgetary limitations, handling
information under seal in the criminal and disciplinary investigations, and lack
of agreement on the election of its Chairperson, although eventually an
agreement was reached. A delegation
from the IACHR visited Colombia to support the work of the Comité de Seguimiento.
[14]
That article states: "Until such
time as the law referred to by Article 329 (Organic Law on Territorial
Organization, which is to determine how the indigenous territorial entities are
to be established) is issued, the Government may issue the tax laws needed, and
all other laws relating to the operation of the indigenous territories and their
coordination with all other territorial entities." Constitution of Colombia, 1991.
[15]
Informe del Comité de Coordinación para
el Seguimiento de las Recomendaciones acordadas por el Comité de Impulso para la
Administración de Justicia en los casos de Los Uvos, Caloto y Villatina,
submitted at the 97th session of the Inter-American Commission.
[16]
Law 288/96 establishes a mechanism for implementing the compensatory aspects of
the decisions issued by inter-governmental organs in connection with state
responsibility for human rights violations.
[17]
Colombia ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on July 31, 1973; the
Convention entered into force on July 18, 1978.
[18]
I/A Court HR, In the matter of Viviana
Gallardo et al., November 13, 1981, para. 26; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary
Objections, para. 88; Case of Fairén
Garbi and Solís Corrales, Preliminary Objections, para. 87; and Case of Godínez Cruz, Preliminary
Objections, para. 90.
[19]
Informe Final del Comité de Coordinación
para el Seguimiento de las Recomendaciones acordadas por el Comité de Impulso a
la Administración de Justicia en los casos de Los Uvos, Caloto y Villatina,
submitted at the hearing held in the Inter-American Commission's 97th regular
session, p. 19. Along the same
lines, on July 29, 1998, the President of the Republic accepted the
responsibility of the Colombian State for the acts or omissions of public
servants in the occurrence of the violent events at Caloto, in the Act of
Recognition of State Responsibility in the violent events at Villatina, Caloto,
Los Uvos, and in the cases of Roison Mora and Faride Herrera.
[20]
On making a pronouncement on the legal value of the American Declaration, the
Court confirmed that in principle, for the States Parties to the Convention, the
specific source of obligations with respect to the protection of human rights is
the Convention. Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, Interpretation of the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, of July 14, 1989, para. 46. The Inter-American Commission has stated
similarly: see Report 38/99, Argentina, Annual Report of the IACHR 1998, para.
13.
[21]
The Commission has established that it has jurisdiction to examine violations of
the Declaration and the Convention whenever there is a continuing violation of
the rights protected in these instruments, such as that caused, for example, by
a denial of justice whose origins pre-date ratification of the Convention by the
state in question, and which continues after the expression of consent or entry
into force of the Convention for that state. See, e.g., Res. 26/88, Case 10.190, Argentina, Annual
Report of the IACHR 1987-1988.
[22]
See I/A Court HR, Advisory Opinion
OC-1/82, "Other Treaties" Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court
(Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights), September 24, 1982,
Series A Nº 1.
[23]
Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, International Labor
Organization (1989). Colombia ratified this Convention on August 7, 1991. The Convention entered into force on
September 6, 1991. Article 1
provides that it applies to tribal peoples whose social, cultural, and economic
conditions distinguish them from other sectors of the national community, and
who are governed in full or in part by their own customs or traditions, or by
special legislation, and to peoples considered indigenous by the fact that they
descend from populations that inhabited the country or a geographic region of
which the country was a part at the time of the conquest or colonization, or
upon establishment of the current state borders, and who, independent of their
legal situation, preserve all or part of their own social, economic, cultural,
and political institutions.
[24]
Inter-American Charter of Social Guarantees, adopted at the Bogotá Conference of
1948, Article 38.
[25]
IACHR, Resolution on Special Protection for Indigenous Peoples, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.29, doc. 38, rev.
(1972). See also, Proposed American Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, approved by the IACHR during its 95th
session, Annual Report of the IACHR
1996, p. 633.
[26]
Informe del Estado Colombiano en el marco
del "Comité de Seguimiento de las recomendaciones acordadas por el Comité de
Impulso a la administración de justicia en los casos de Villatina, Los Uvos y
Caloto," p. 34.
[27]
Informe Final del Comité de Impulso a la
Administración de Justicia en los Casos de Villatina, Los Uvos y Caloto, p.
70.
[28]
Among these, telephone company bills showed calls made from the Police Command
of the zone to the home of Mr. Bernal Seijas, legal representative of the Sociedad Agropecuaria Piedra Blanca
Ltda. and to the home of its administrator. In addition, witnesses indicated that
the following day, Police agents collected the shells that the witnesses had
found at the site, which affected the significance of the ballistics test in the
proceedings, id., pp. 80-81.
[29]
Informe Final del Comité de Coordinación
para el Seguimiento de las Recomendaciones acordadas por el Comité de Impulso a
la Administración de Justicia en los casos de Los Uvos, Caloto y Villatina,
submitted at the hearing held in the Inter-American Commission's 97th regular
session, p. 19. Along the same
lines, on July 29, 1998, the President of the Republic accepted the
responsibility of the Colombian State for the acts or omissions of public
servants in the occurrence of the violent events at Caloto, in the Act of
Recognition of State Responsibility in the violent events at Villatina, Caloto,
Los Uvos, and in the cases of Roison Mora and Faride Herrera.
[30]
Informe evaluativo de la Procuraduría
Delegada para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, File 134918, folio
259.
[31]
Informe Final del Comité de Impulso a la
Administración de Justicia en los Casos de Villatina, Los Uvos y Caloto, pp.
60 and 61.
[32]
Informe Final del Comité de Coordinación
para el Seguimiento de las Recomendaciones acordadas por el Comité de Impulso a
la Administración de Justicia en los casos de Los Uvos, Caloto y Villatina,
p. 9. The Office of the Delegate
Procurator for the National Police opened an investigation into officers and
non-commissioned officers of the Police for ties of friendship with alleged drug
traffickers or persons known in the region as perpetrators of criminal
acts. Yet this inquiry, known as
"Caloto 2," is not directly related to the facts in this case. In any event, on October 30, 1997, the
Delegate Procurator for the National Police terminated the disciplinary
proceedings early based on the principle of favorability, on motion of the
accused.
[33]
Id., pp. 9-10.
[34]
Informe Final del Comité de Coordinación
para el Seguimiento de las Recomendaciones acordadas por el Comité de Impulso a
la Administración de Justicia en los casos de Los Uvos, Caloto y Villatina,
p. 8.
[35]
I/A Court HR, Case of Velásquez
Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 91.
[36]
IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights
Situation in Colombia (1999), p. 156, para. 20. See also Second Report on the Situation of Human
Rights in Colombia (1993), pp. 245-246, where it states: "The military tribunals do not guarantee
that the right to a fair trial will be observed, since they do not have the
independence that is a condition sine qua
non for that right to be exercised.
Moreover, their rulings have frequently been biased and have failed to
punish members of the security forces whose involvement in very serious human
rights violations has been established."
[37]
Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-358 of August 5, 1997.
[38]
I/A Court HR, Case of Velásquez
Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 176.
[39]
Id., para. 166.
[40]
I/A Court HR, Case of Castillo Páez,
Reparations, Judgment of November 27, 1998, para. 106.
[41]
I/A Court HR, Case of Velásquez
Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 174.
[42]
Id., para. 75.
[43] Informe Final del Comité de Impulso a la
Administración de Justicia en los Casos de Villatina, Los Uvos y Caloto, p.
119.
[44]
Office of Special Investigations, Office of the Procurator General of the
Nation, Report of January 28, 1992.
[45]
Informe Final del Comité de Impulso a la
Administración de Justicia en los Casos de Villatina, Los Uvos y Caloto, p.
119.
[46] See, in this regard, Report 24/98, Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, para. 53.
[ Home | Publications | Press Releases | Basic Documents | Links | Search ]