Report No. 37 (2025) IACHR. Petition No. 12.952 (Colombia)

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

REPORT No. 37/25

CASE 12.952

REPORT ON MERITS (PUBLICATION)

MARIELA DEL CARMEN ECHEVERRÍA DE SANGUINO

COLOMBIA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 40

A. 4, 2025

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on A. 4, 2025

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 37/25, C. 12,952. M.. M.d.C.E. de S.. Colombia. A.4., 2025.

www.cidh.org

INDEX

I. INTRODUCTION 2

II. THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS 2

A. The petitioner 2

B. The S. 3

III. FINDINGS OF FACT 3

A. On the criminal trial 3

B. Remedies pursued by M.E. after the criminal trial 12

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS 14

A. Rights to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument) 14

V. REPORT No. 325/20 AND COMPLIANCE REPORTING 17

VI. FINAL CONCLUSIONS 20

VII. PUBLICATION 20

1. INTRODUCTION1

1. On September 9, 1999, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition filed by J.S.S. (hereinafter “the petitioner”) alleging the international responsibility of Colombia (hereinafter “the C.S.,” “the S.,” or “Colombia”) to the detriment of M.d.C.E. de S. for the violations of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection in a criminal trial against her for the crimes of material misrepresentation in a private document, fictitious export, misrepresentation in document introduced into evidence (falsedad ideológica), and fraud (estafa).

2. The Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 47/14 of J. 21, 2014.² On A. 6, 2014, the Commission notified the parties of that report and placed itself at their disposal to pursue a friendly settlement, yet the conditions for doing so never materialized. The parties had the time periods as per the Rules of Procedure for filing their additional observations on the merits. All the information received from one party was duly forward to the other.

2. THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

1. The petitioner

3. The petitioner reports that in February 1990 M.E., along with other persons, was implicated in a criminal trial for the crimes of use of a false public document in conjunction with fictitious export (exportación ficticia), material misrepresentation in a private document (falsedad de documento privado), and fraud (estafa). He indicates that the trial violated several of Ms. Echeverría’s guarantees associated with the right to a fair trial.

4. The petitioner argues that her right to defense was violated since during the trial evidence was introduced that was unlawfully obtained. He explains that there was a document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia indicating that permission had not been granted for judicial investigative steps to be taken by C. judges in Venezuela. He adds that despite that the judge in charge of the criminal proceeding against Ms. Echeverría did receive and weigh evidence sent from Venezuela.

5. The petitioner alleges that her right to defense was also violated because the judge in charge of the trial did not accept documentation produced by M.E.. He argues that the judge merely indicated that such evidence was “inadmissible and irrelevant” without presenting further reasoning in this regard. He adds that Ms. Echeverría asked that several activities be conducted to collect evidence, yet they were not carried out.

6. In addition, the petitioner notes that the public defender assigned to Ms. Echeverría was not adequate. He indicates that initially she was assigned a public defender who was a specialist in family law, not criminal law, who (i) did not file any memorial of arguments or any motion to present or object to evidence; (ii) was not present when witnesses were questioned; (iii) did not provide concluding arguments in the preliminary phase of the criminal proceeding; and (iv) did not appeal the resolution handing down the charges. He argues that in response to M.E.’s complaints other public defenders were assigned, yet they did not provide adequate legal counsel either, as they failed to study the record, did not present arguments or request evidence, and did not appeal the verdict finding her guilty. He explains that this situation left M.E. in a defenseless position.

7. F., the petitioner alleges that the right to judicial protection was violated since Ms. Echeverría did not have an adequate and effective remedy to address the due process violations. He indicates that a motion for appeal was filed, as well as a motion for review and a tutela action, all of which were dismissed without having analyzed the merits.

2. The S.

8. The S. argues that the criminal trial of Ms. E. complied with all due process guarantees. As regards the alleged taking of irregular evidence, Colombia argues that all the documentation received by the judge in the criminal trial, including what was obtained from Venezuela, was duly considered and analyzed by the parties. It adds that collaboration among states to ensure the investigation and punishment of crimes is of vital importance.

9. In addition, the S. indicates that at all times M.E.’s right to defense was safeguarded. It argues that initially she was assigned a public defender, and that in response to her requests she was afforded the possibility of having other public defenders. It adds that the mere fact that M.E. is not content with the activity of her legal representatives does not per se entail a due process violation.

10. The C. S. also argues that M.E. was duly notified, during the trial, and was able to access all mechanisms available in the C. judicial system, so that her situation could be examined by competent judges of various ranks and jurisdictions. It adds that while the decisions were not favorable to the alleged victim, the situation cannot give rise to international responsibility.

3. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On the criminal trial

11. At the time of the facts M.d.C.E. de S. worked as manager of the company “Comercializadora Cúcuta y Compañía Limitada,” in the city of Cúcuta, Colombia.3

12. On February 2, 1990, the Deputy Manager for Internal Affairs at the Banco de la República sent a letter to the National Director of Criminal Investigation in which he reported possible frauds upon the property of the S. administered by that bank.⁴ On February 12, 1990, the Division of Criminal Investigation for Bogotá ordered that an investigation proceed.5

13. On February 26, 1990, the Deputy Manager for Internal Affairs at the Banco de la República appeared before the 60^th Itinerant C. of Criminal Investigation of Bogotá. He reported that it was learned that false documents were issued by “Industrias S. Hermanos y Compañía” and other companies that depended on it, including the company where M.E. worked as manager. He added that the companies involved issued false documents to indicate that they had engaged in export operations with companies from Venezuela. He said that as a result they requested tax refund certificates from the Banco de la República,...