Report No. 101 (2017) IACHR. Case No. 12.414 (Colombia)

• Case Number: 12.414
• Year: 2017
• Report Number: 101
• Respondent State: Colombia
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Alcides Torres Arias, Ángel David Quintero y otros

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.164

Doc. 119

5 September 2017

Original: Spanish

REPORT No. 101/17

CASE 12.414

REPORT ON MERITS (PUBLICATION)

ALCIDES TORRES ARIAS, A.D.Q. ET AL

COLOMBIA

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2096 held on September 5, 2017.
164_th Special Period of Sessions.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 101/17, C. 12.214, Merits (Publication), Alcides Torres Arias, A.D.Q. and others, Colombia, September 5, 2017.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 101/17

CASE 12.414

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

ALCIDES TORRES ARIAS, A.D.Q. ET AL

COLOMBIA

SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

INDEX

I. SUMMARY 3

II. PROCESSING BY THE IACHR 3

A. Processing of the case 3

B. Processing of precautionary measures 4

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 5

A. The petitioners 5

B. The State 8

IV. PROVEN FACTS 11

A. Context 11

1. Regarding the paramilitary phenomenon in Colombia 11

2. The context of paramilitary activities in the area of Urabá 15

B. Detention and disappearance of A.T.A. and Angel David Quintero 16

C. Internal processes related to forced disappearance 24

1. Habeas corpus appeal filed by the next of kin of A.T.A. 25

2. Criminal proceedings 27

3. D. proceedings 29

4. Justice and Police Act 29

V. LEGAL ANALYSIS 30

A. Prior considerations 30

1. D. of the alleged victims 30

2. Regarding the procedural consequences of failing to meet the deadlines for presenting observations on the merits 31

B. Rights to recognition of juridical personality, to personal liberty, to personal integrity, and to life (Articles 3, 7, 5, and 4 of the American Convention; and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (Article I.a) 31

1. The deprivation of the liberty of Messrs. A.T.A. y Angel David Quintero 34

2. The alleged acquiescence and collaboration between paramilitary groups and the security forces 35

3. Concealment 36

4. The corresponding legal characterization 36

C...... ......R. to judicial guarantees and right to judicial protection (Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention) and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (Article 1 (b)) 36

D. Right to humane treatment of the families of the victims (Article 5(1) of the American Convention) 41

VI. PROCEEDINGS THAT FOLLOWED REPORT NO. 89/14 42

VII. PROCEEDINGS THAT FOLLOWED REPORT NO. 43/17 42

VIII. ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS 43

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 44

IX. PUBLICATION 45

REPORT No. 101/17

CASE 12.414

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

ALCIDES TORRES ARIAS, A.D.Q. ET AL

COLOMBIA¹

SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

1. SUMMARY
   
   

1. On November 21, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission," “the Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition lodged by C.A.R.P., alleging violation of the right to life and to humane treatment, to personal liberty, and to protection of the family, all of which are enshrined in Articles 1(1), 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 7(3), 7(5), 17(1) and 17(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention,” “the Convention” or the "ACHR"), by the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter "the C.S.," "the S.," or "Colombia") in the enforced disappearance of Mr. A.T.A., since December 20, 1995, by members of the army and of paramilitary groups, following his detention on the premises of the XVII Brigade of the National Army, located in Carepa, Department of Antioquia. It was noted that Mr. T.A. was arrested together with three other people, included Mr. A.D.Q.. T. added that two of these people were released, while Mr. Torres Arias and Mr. Quintero whereabouts’ remain unknown. It was further alleged that the deeds had gone unpunished. At the merits stage, the petitioners asked the Commission to regard M.A.D.Q. as the victim in the case.

2. For its part, the State argued that it cannot be assigned responsibility for the deeds relating to the alleged violation of the right to life and to humane treatment, to personal liberty, and to protection of the family because, although Mr. A.T.A. and Mr. Angel David Quintero were deprived of their liberty under S. custody, they were released on December 20^th, 1995. A., the State argued that it cannot be assigned responsibility for what happened after the release. It further argued that it met its obligation to investigate what happened to the alleged victims and that some of the perpetrators had been punished. At the merits stage, the S. indicated that it recognized Mr. A.D.Q. as an alleged victim in the case.

3. After reviewing the positions of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State of Colombia is responsible for violating the right to judicial personality, to life, to personal integrity, to personal liberty, to a fair trial/due guarantees, to protection of the family, and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, and 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Messrs. A.T.A. and A.D.Q.. The Commission also concluded that the State violated the rights to personal integrity, due guarantees, and judicial protection established in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the relatives. F., the Commission concluded that the Colombian State is responsible for violating the obligations established in Articles 1 (a) and 1(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.

2. PROCESSING BY THE IACHR

1. Processing of the case

4. The initial petition was received on November 21, 2000. The processing of the petition from the time it was lodged to the decision on admissibility is described in detail in Admissibility Report No. 6/03,² issued on February 20, 2003.

5. In that report, the Commission declared itself competent to hear the petition and stated that the facts denounced therein could constitute violations of the rights established in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument.

6. On March 11, 2003, the Commission notified the parties of the aforementioned report and, pursuant to Article 38.1 of the Rules of Procedures then in force, gave the petitioners two months in which to submit their additional observations on the merits. F., pursuant to Article 48.1.f of the American Convention, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the Parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter.

7. On May 10, 2003 and J. 24, 2007, the petitioners submitted their additional observations on the merits of the matter. The petitioners submitted further information on the case on October 28, 2005, and on February 11 and April 7, 2008.

8. On J. 17, 2008, the S. presented a communication asking the Commission to pronounce specifically on the procedural consequences of the petitioners' failure to submit their observations on the merits within the time allowed. On July 6, 2009, the S. requested an eight-day extension to respond to the IACHR's note of J.4., 2009, which reiterated the Commission's request for the submission of observations on the merits. On July 7, 2009, the IACHR granted the State a 10-day extension. On July 17, 2009, the S. requested an additional 30-day extension for submitting its observations. The State presented its observations on the merits on August 10, 2009. On May 1, 2012, the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of the observations on the merits to the petitioners.

9. On May 1 and J.6., 2012, the Commission asked the petitioners and the State to provide the complete files on internal disciplinary, administrative, criminal, and Justice and Peace proceedings relating to the instant case, along with any other information the parties deemed relevant. At the date of approval of this Report, the Commission has not received any answer to those communications.

10. On December 2, 2013, the S. sent a...