Report No. 195 (2025) IACHR. Petition No. 14.939 (Colombia)

• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Year: 2025
• Case Type: Friendly Settlements
• Respondent State: Colombia

REPORT No. 195/25

CASE 14.939

REPORT ON FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

EDGARDO SURMAY SOTO, L.J.S.T., AND RELATIVES

COLOMBIA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II

Doc. 206

14 October 2025

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on October 14, 2025.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 195/25, C. 14.939, Friendly Settlement, E. S.S., L.J.S.T. and Relatives, Colombia, October 14, 2025.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 195/25

CASE 14.939

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

EDGARDO SURMAY SOTO, L.J.S.T.,

AND RELATIVES

COLOMBIA1

OCTOBER 14, 2025

1. SUMMARY AND RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT PROCESS

1. On J. 22, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “IACHR”) received a petition submitted by Mr. R.R.G.,2 (hereinafter “the petitioner” or “the petitioning party”) alleging international responsibility on the part of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter the “S.,” “C.S.,” or “Colombia”) for violating the human rights contemplated in Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (a fair trial), 11 (privacy), 19 (rights of the child), 24 (equal protection), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or “American Convention”), in connection with Article 1.1 thereof (obligation to respect rights) for the murder of Mr. E.S.S., the subsequent kidnapping and disappearance of his son, L. José S.T., the failure to investigate the facts, as well as the displacement of Mrs. M.T.E., wife and mother of the aforementioned victims, along with her mother and three sons (hereinafter the “alleged victims”).

2. On M. 8, 2022, the Commission issued Admissibility Report No. 32/22, in which it declared the petition to be admissible and affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the claim submitted by the petitioner regarding the alleged violation of the rights contained in Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), 19 (rights of the child), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof (obligation to respect rights).

3. On May 20, 2024, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding to pursue a friendly settlement in the instant case, along with a work schedule. In the following months the parties held bilateral meetings to analyze the reparation measures to be included in the Friendly Settlement Agreement (hereinafter “FSA”), which materialized with its signature on April 23, 2025 in the city of Bogota, Colombia. L., on May 21, 2025, the parties submitted to the IACHR a joint note reporting on a private event acknowledging international responsibility and requesting approval of the FSA.

4. This friendly settlement agreement, as established in Article 49 of the Convention and Article 40.5 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, provides a summary of the facts alleged by the petitioner and transcribes the friendly settlement agreement signed on April 23, 2025, between the parties, i.e., the petitioner and the C.S.. In addition, the agreement signed between the parties is approved and provision is made for the publication of this report in the Annual Report of the IACHR to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

2. THE FACTS ALLEGED

5. As alleged by the petitioner, on November 4, 1990, Mr. E.S. Soto was murdered with a firearm on the streets of the municipality of Nueva Granada, M., an area under the influence of members of the self-defense forces known as “Los Chepes,” led by Mr. J.M.B.O., alias “C.B.” or “Don Chepe.” Mr. S.S., who was a member of the National Police, had sought voluntary retirement in order to dedicate himself to raising livestock, for which reason he was recognized in the Ariguaní region and its surroundings. Following the murder, Mrs. M.T.E., her mother and three children were forced to move to the city of Barranquilla due to fear regarding their safety.

6. The petitioner reported that after the investigations in the case had been initiated, the alleged victims had submitted various rights to petition, which were resolved by the M.P., the Director of Prosecutions of Santa Marta, and the Sectional Prosecutor’s O. of Plato, indicating that there was no investigation or record of the proceedings because the respective file had been burned in an uprising in the municipality of Plato, M.. The petitioner also argued that it was the S.’s duty to reconstruct the file, as the murder of Mr. S.S. continued to go completely unpunished, in that no one had been convicted for the events, and the family had been denied the rights to truth, justice, and reparations for the damage caused. In addition, the petitioner pointed out that at the time of the events, criminal legislation prescribed a sentence of 20 years for the crime of murder, so that as of the date the petition was filed with the IACHR the crime was no longer subject to prosecution.

7. On M. 30, 1992, the youngster L.J.S.T., who was fourteen at the time and the son of Mr. E.S.S., had been kidnapped by persons unknown while on his way to school. This was reported to the competent authorities, and the investigation was initiated by the Anti-Extortion and Kidnapping Unit (Unidad Antiextorsión y Secuestro - UNASE) made up of the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), the National Police, the O. of the A. General, and the National Army. The petition maintained that a prior investigation had been advanced under file No. 2463 for the crime of kidnapping for ransom, and under a resolution of J. 23, 1996, the Sixth Specialized Prosecutor’s O. of Barranquilla had squelched the opening of an investigation and ordered archiving of the earlier proceeding, without notifying the family. The petitioner also emphasized that another earlier investigation had been opened with the number 308.998, and had been archived, without the petitioner having been notified to confirm the complaint regarding the kidnapping and forced disappearance. The investigation had advanced an inquiry conducted by the Technical Investigations Unit (CTI) of the Prosecutor’s O., wherein the prosecutor in the case indicated that the investigators did not submit the report in the case, which would provide evidence of negligence. F., the petitioner reported that under a resolution dated May 24, 2011, Prosecutor’s O. 42 of the Barranquilla Life Unit had suppressed further investigation of the facts.

8. The petitioner alleged that, to date, none of the competent authorities – the Barranquilla Life Unit, the Atlántico DAS, or the Atlántico Regional Prosecutor’s O. – had been able to obtain information on the whereabouts of the child L. José Surmay Terán, nor on the perpetrators or masterminds of the events. The petitioner indicated that Mrs. M.T.E., his mother, and Mrs. T.C.S.T., his sister, submitted several rights to petition with the FGN, DAS, the Criminal Investigations Section of the National Police, and the O. of the A. General. N., these entities had not provided concrete or satisfactory responses to the relatives of the alleged victims.

9. The petitioner emphasized that Mrs. M.T.E. and Mrs. Tulia Cristina S.T. had been recognized as victims of the armed conflict in the context of Law 1448 of 2011 (whereby measures regarding care, assistance, and comprehensive reparation for the victims of the internal armed conflict are issued in addition to other provisions), and by the Unit for the Care and Integral Reparation of Victims [UARIV in Spanish]. As a result, an investigation was initiated before Justice and Peace O. 11 of the Court of Barranquilla. S., under files No. 237841 and No. 259830, Mrs. Terán España and Mrs. S.T. had been accepted as victims of the internal armed conflict in relation to the murder of Mr. E.S.S., and the kidnapping and disappearance of the child L. José Surmay Terán. F., they had been awarded 40 current legal minimum salaries as reparations for the murder of Mr. S.S..

10. The petitioning party added that, pursuant to the protection ruling handed down on M. 28, 2014 by the First Civil Court of the Santa Marta Circuit, the rights of Mrs. S.T. to petition, to due administrative process, and to equality were affirmed because the UARIV was ordered, within a period of 30 days, to resolve the request for administrative reparation for the events related to the murder of Mr. S.S. and the kidnapping and disappearance of her son. F., the judgment also...