Report No. 123 (2010) IACHR. Petition No. 11.144 (Colombia)

• Petition Number: 11.144
• Report Number: 123
• Year: 2010
• Respondent State: Colombia
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Gerson Jairzinho González Arroyo
• Case Type: Admissibility

10

REPORT No. 123/10

CASE 11.144

ADMISSIBILITY

GERSON JAIRZINHO GONZÁLEZ ARROYO AND OTHERS

COLOMBIA¹

October 23, 2010

I. SUMMARY

1. On A.7., 1993, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or "the IACHR") received a petition presented by the Corporación Colectivo de Abogados "J.A.R." (hereinafter "the petitioners") alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter "the S." or "the S. of Colombia") for the forced disappearance of G.J.G.A. (hereinafter "the alleged victim") on November 20, 1992, in the city of Sincelejo, Department of Sucre, as well as for the judicial authority's lack of due diligence in the investigation and punishment of those responsible for these events.

2. The petitioners allege that the S. is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, personal integrity, personal liberty, freedom of expression, judicial guarantees and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention"), all in conjunction with the general obligation to respect and guarantee the rights, set out in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. T. maintain that the case is admissible in view of the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies set out in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention, based on the unwarranted delay in concluding the criminal proceedings. T.S., for its part, alleges that the petition is inadmissible in view of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, due to the fact that criminal proceedings are still pending. In addition, it alleges that there is no colorable claim on a possible violation of the American Convention pursuant to Article 47.b of the said instrument because the family members of the alleged victim were granted reparations.

3. A. examining the position of the parties in the light of the requirements for admissibility set out in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, the Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the claim and that it is admissible for the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 of the same international instrument. In addition, by virtue of the principle iura novit curia, the Commission considers admissible the possible violation of Article 3 of the American Convention and of Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter "Convention on Forced Disappearance"). F., the Commission concludes that the petition is inadmissible in respect to the alleged violation of Article 13 of the American Convention. C., it decides to notify the report to the parties, to order its publication and to include it in its Annual R..

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4. The IACHR registered the complaint under No. 11.144 and, after undertaking a preliminary examination, on April 14, 1993, proceeded to send it to the S. of Colombia, with a time limit of 90 days to present information in accordance with the Rules of procedure in force at the time. On January 4, 1994, the S. presented its response, which was sent to the petitioners for their observations. The petitioners lodged their response on March 25, 1994, which was sent to the S. on April 18, 1994 for its observations. On May 23, 1994, the S. presented its response, which was sent to the petitioners on J. 19, 1994, for their observations. The petitioners presented their observations on August 19, 1994, which were sent to the S. on August 31, 1994, for its observations.

5. On October 20, 1994, the S. presented its response, which was sent to the petitioners for their observations. On January 3, 1995, the petitioners lodged their response, which was sent to the S. for its observations. On March 22, 1995, the S. presented its response, which was sent to the petitioners for their observations.

6. On May 26, 1995, the petitioners presented their response, which was sent to the S. for its observation. T.S. presented its observations on J. 17, 1995, which were sent to the petitioners for their observations. On September 15, 1995, the petitioners lodged their response, which was sent to the S. for its observations. On December 4, 1995, the S. presented its response brief, which was sent to the petitioners for their observations.

7. On February 15, 1996, the petitioners filed their response, which was sent to the S. for its observations. On May 13, 1996, the S. requested an extension, which was granted by the IACHR on August 7, 1996. On September 26, 1996, the S. presented its response, which was sent to the petitioners for their observations.

8. On October 10, 1996, the IACHR placed itself at the disposal of the parties in order to commence friendly settlement proceedings. On November 12, 1996, the petitioners replied that they agreed to start a dialogue that might permit the reaching of a friendly settlement, provided that the S. fulfilled certain requirements. T. communication was sent to the S. on November 15, 1996. On November 20, 1996, the S. replied that, for the time being, it was not willing to attempt a friendly settlement. T. communication was sent to the petitioners on January 27, 1997.

9. On February 3, 2000, the petitioners requested precautionary measures in favor of the immediate family of the alleged victim. The IACHR requested information from the S. on February 3, 2000, with a time limit of 10 days. On February 15, 2000, the S. requested an extension to present its response, which was granted by the IACHR on February 17, 2000. On March 13, 2000, the S. sent its response, which was remitted to the petitioners for their observations. The petitioners presented their response on J.9., 2000, which was sent to the S. on J. 12, 2000, for its observations. The precautionary measures were not granted.

10. On J. 14, 2000, the S. presented its observations, which were sent to the petitioners for their observations. The petitioners presented their observations on J.2., 2002, which were remitted to the S. on J.5., 2003, for its observations. On November 14, 2003, the S. presented its response, which was sent to the petitioners for their observations. On April 13, 2009, the IACHR requested up-to-date information from both parties. On May 14, 2009, the S. requested an extension to present its response, which was granted by the IACHR. T.S. replied on J. 12, 2009.

III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A. Position of the Petitioners

11. The petitioners allege that on the morning of November 20, 1992, Gerson Jairzinho González Arroyo (aged 18) was in the S.A. neighborhood of the city of Sincelejo, in the Department of Sucre. T. state that around 9:30 hours, he was detained, allegedly, by agents of the Administrative Department of Security (hereinafter "DAS"), who took him to a truck and set off for an unknown destination. The petitioners point out that L.G. Espinosa, G.G.'s father, was made aware of what happened due to the fact that one eyewitness was the cousin of the alleged victim.

12. T. state that some days prior to G.G.'s...