Report No. 149 (2011) IACHR. Petition No. 873-06 (Colombia)
| Year | 2011 |
| Petition Number | 873-06 |
| Report Number | 149 |
| Respondent State | Colombia |
| Case Type | Admissibility |
| Court | Inter-American Comission of Human Rights |
| Alleged Victim | Familia de la cooperativa de trabajadores agropecuarios de Blanquicet |
REPORT NO. 149/111
PETITION 873-06
ADMISSIBILITY
FAMILIES BELONGING TO THE BLANQUICET AGRICULTURAL WORKERS COOPERATIVE (COTRAGROBLAN)
COLOMBIA
November 2, 2011
I. SUMMARY
1. On September 5, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, "the Commission" or "the IACHR") received a petition lodged by the Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz (hereinafter, "the petitioners"), alleging that the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter, "the S.," "the C.S.," or "Colombia") is responsible for the alleged forced displacement of nine families that make up the B. Agricultural Workers Cooperative (hereinafter, "COTRAGROBLAN" or "the cooperative")2; the subsequent violent dispossession and fraudulent appropriation of their properties, called "La Esperanza" and "Nueva Vida," located in the municipality of T., in the department of Antioquia; and the death of cooperative member O.M. at the hands of paramilitary groups, as well as the lack of judicial clarification of the facts. The petitioners alleged that these acts result from a failure to prevent, prosecute, and punish the activities of paramilitary groups.
2. The petitioners alleged that the S. was responsible for violating the rights to life, a fair trial, protection of the family, private property, freedom of movement and residence, and judicial protection, established in Articles 4, 8(1), 17, 21, 22(1), and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, "the Convention" or "the American Convention"), in conjunction with the guarantee obligation under Article 1(1). For its part, the S. alleged that the petitioners' claims were inadmissible on grounds that the Commission did not have jurisdiction ratione personae to hear the petitions of juridical persons, and that there had not been proper individual identification of the alleged victims, exhaustion of domestic remedies, or characterization of the acts in question as violations of the American Convention.
3. A. analyzing the parties' positions and whether the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention have been met, the Commission decided to declare the case admissible for the purpose of examining the alleged violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 8, 22, and 25 in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. M., the Commission decided that it will analyze the merits of the petitioners' allegations pertaining to loss of personal property by the members of the families, namely their crops, homes, and possessions, in light of the standards established in Article 21 of the Convention; that it lacks jurisdiction to refer to the alleged violation of Article 21 with regard to the "La Esperanza" and "Nueva Vida" properties belonging to the cooperative; and that the allegations regarding the alleged violation of Article 17 of the American Convention are inadmissible. The Commission decided to notify the parties of this decision and order its publication in its Annual R. to the OAS General Assembly.
II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION
4. On August 14, 2006, the petitioners filed a request for precautionary measures for four families that are part of COTRAGROBLAN, and the Commission granted these measures on September 1, 2006.3 The precautionary measure remains in force as of the date of approval of this report.
5. The Commission registered the petition as number P-873-06, and after conducting a preliminary analysis, on October 3, 2006, it forwarded a copy of the relevant portions to the S., giving it a two-month period to submit information, in accordance with Article 30(3) of the IACHR Rules of Procedure. In response, the S. requested a 30-day extension of the time period for submitting its observations; this was granted by the IACHR. T.S. presented its observations on January 11, 2007, and its annexes on January 12, 2007, which were forwarded to the petitioners for their observations. On April 3, 2009, the Commission, in accordance with Article 30(5) of its Rules of Procedure, asked the S. and the petitioners for updated information on the referenced matter. In addition, the Commission reiterated to the petitioners its request for observations.
6. On April 15, 2009, the petitioners sent in two briefs with observations, dated April 25 and October 11, 2007, which were forwarded to the S. for its observations. In response, the S. requested a 60-day extension, and the Commission granted a 30-day extension. On J. 3, 2009, the S. submitted its response, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their observations. On December 17, 2009, the petitioners submitted their response, which was forwarded to the S. for its observations. In response, the S. requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the Commission. On March 5, 2010, the S. sent in its observations, which were forwarded to the petitioners for their information. On February 15, 2011, the petitioners submitted additional information, which was forwarded to the S. for its observations. On March 28, 2011, the S. requested an extension, which the Commission granted. On J. 1, 2011, the S. submitted observations, which were forwarded to the petitioners for their information.
III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. P. of the Petitioners
7. By way of background, the petitioners allege that since the end of the 1980s, self-defense groups that called themselves the "Tangueros" (and later, the Autodefensas Campesinas de Córdoba y Urabá, ACCU, and the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, AUC—United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia) were operating in the Urabá region, and that their activity began to strengthen significantly in that region beginning in the early 1990s.4
8. The petitioners maintain that on August 13, 1990, the B. Agricultural Workers Cooperative was established, and was made up of nine campesino families from that town in the municipality of T., in the department of Antioquia. T. indicate that on January 21, 1991, and January 16, 1995, COTRAGROBLAN acquired the rural properties called "La Esperanza" and "Nueva Vida," respectively.
9. T. allege that, beginning in 1996 and for a period of two years, approximately 240 families moved away from the town of B. as a result of death threats, selective murders, and pressure from paramilitary groups. A great number of these families were allegedly forced to sell their properties under death threats, and most of them had moved to the municipalities of Chigorodó and T. and the city of Medellín, in the department of Antioquia.
10. The petitioners maintain that in this context, the nine families that make up COTRAGROBLAN were forced to abandon their crops, homes, and possessions, and move away, after which their "La Esperanza" and "Nueva Vida" properties were occupied by the paramilitaries identified as A. or A.U., alias "El Palillo", and another person known as "Cincuenta y Cinco". T. allege that even though the situation was publicly known, and even though between April and December 1996 some families—including those of O.M.M.C. and S.B.P.—had reported the forced displacement to a municipal legal entity (Personería) in Chigorodó and the National Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría del Pueblo) and the Personería in Montería, the authorities reportedly had taken no action whatsoever. The petitioners add that the situation of forced displacement and widespread fear due to the presence of paramilitary groups in B. had prevented them from attempting other remedies.
11. The petitioners allege that in January 2001, the legal representative of COTRAGROBLAN, M.E.R.C., was forced by three paramilitaries—including the one known as "El Palillo"—to sign a contract document to lease "La Esperanza" to an individual. T. indicate that in J. 2003, Mr. R.C. discovered that the notary in Carepa had registered a public deed of sale for that property by falsifying his signature and fingerprint. T. allege that the record of sale had been turned into public deed No. 333, dated May 28, 2001, and that this judicial action gave rise to three transfers of property titles. T. add that, even though the "Nueva Vida" property appeared independently on a real-estate register folio, deed No. 333 also executed the sale of that property.
12. The petitioners state that Mr. R.C. reported these facts, and on September 10, 2004, the 66th Municipal Prosecutor's Office of Chigorodó ordered that a preliminary investigation be opened, filed under No. 5370, and that the individual versions of events by the participants in the transaction be received. The petitioners allege that in May 2005 the 72nd Municipal Prosecutor's Office of Chigorodó handed down a dismissal decision in favor of the Carepa notary, on grounds that he had acted under overwhelming outside coercion and had been driven by overwhelming fear, and ordered the cancellation in its entirety of public deed No. 333, its subsequent registration in the Public Records Office, and the surrender of the real estate, and also ordered the proceedings to be discontinued.
13. The petitioners maintain that in J. 2005 the Public Prosecutor's Office ordered that the preliminary investigation be partially...
To continue reading
Request your trial