Report No. 38 (2013) IACHR. Petition No. 65-04 (Colombia)

• Year: 2013
• Petition Number: 65-04
• Report Number: 38
• Respondent State: Colombia
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Jorge Adolfo Freytter Romero y otros
• Case Type: Admissibility

15

REPORT No. 38/13

PETITION 65-04

ADMISSIBILITY

JORGE ADOLFO FREYTTER ROMERO ET. AL.

COLOMBIA

July 11, 2013¹

1. SUMMARY

1. On January 30, 2004, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter the “State” or “the State of Colombia”) in the illegal detention, disappearance, torture, and extrajudicial execution of Jorge Adolfo Freytter Romero (hereinafter, the “alleged victim”), which occurred between August 28 and 29, 2001 in the city of Barranquilla, as well as the failure on the part of the legal authorities to fully investigate the facts. The petition likewise alleges violations of the right to humane treatment and of movement and residence to the detriment of Mr. Freytter Romero’s family.² The petition was filed by Mr. Jorge Enrique Freytter Florián, son of the alleged victim, and the Corporación Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo [José Alvear Restrepo Collective Association of Attorneys] (hereinafter, “the petitioners”) subsequently became the petitioner before the IACHR.

2. The petitioners hold that the State is responsible for violating Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 17, 22, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), pursuant to Article 1(1) thereof, and Articles I(b) and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter, “the Convention on Forced Disappearance”), as well as Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. The State, for its part, maintains that legal proceedings based on the substance of the petition are ongoing in both the regular criminal justice system and under the Justice and Peace Law and therefore considers the petition to be inadmissible by virtue of the fact that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in accordance with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention.

3. Having analyzed the parties’ positions and verified compliance with the requirements set forth under Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, the Commission decided to declare the petition admissible for purposes of examining the alleged violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 16, 22, and 25, in accordance with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Commission further decided to declare inadmissible the petition with respect to the alleged violation of Article 17 of the American Convention, notify the parties of the report, and order it be published in its annual report to the OAS General Assembly.

2. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4. The Commission received the petition and assigned it number 65-04, and after conducting a preliminary analysis, on August 17, 2005, the IACHR forwarded to the State the relevant portions of the petition so it could provide its observations. The State’s response was received on January 3, 2006 and was forwarded to the petitioners for their observations.

5. On April 2, 2009, the IACHR asked the petitioners to provide updated information on the case. The petitioners’ response was received on October 9, 2009 and was forwarded to the State for its observations. On November 13, 2009, the State requested an extension for presenting its response; such extension was granted. On December 17, 2009, the State submitted its response, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their observations. On January 13 and October 15, 2010, the IACHR repeated its request for a response from the petitioners. On February 8, 2011 the petitioners submitted their response, which was then forwarded to the State for its observations. On March 17, April 18, and June 3, 2011, the State requested extensions for submitting its observations; such requests were granted. On July 26, 2011, the State submitted its response, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their information.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The Petitioners’ Position

6. In terms of background, the petitioners state that Jorge Freytter was a professor at the Universidad del Atlántico, which is located in the city of Barranquilla, for approximately 20 years; during this time, he is said to have been actively involved in different trade union-related activities. They indicate that while he was no longer teaching at the time the events referred to in this complaint occurred, Mr. Freytter had reportedly remained on as an “active member” of several organizations such as the Asociación de Profesores Universitarios [Association of University Professors] (ASPU), the Cooperativa de trabajadores, profesores y jubilados de la Universidad del Atlántico [Universidad del Atlántico Workers, Professors, and Retirees Cooperative] (COOTRAUDEA), and the Asociación de Jubilados de la Universidad del Atlántico [Universidad del Atlántico Retirees Association] (ASOJUA). The petitioners point out that in July 2001, a number of protests were reportedly held because the Universidad del Atlántico had failed to make back payments for pensions; they add that, at that time, the alleged victim was responsible for management activities on behalf of the ASOJUA.

7. The petitioners note that the facts referred to in this petition would fall under the category of persecution of student leaders, trade union members, and professors at the Universidad del Atlántico by the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia [United Self-defense Units of Colombia] (AUC – Northern Block) in the department of Atlántico; at the time these events occurred (2001), this group was reportedly conspiring with members of law enforcement who belonged to the National Police’s Grupo de Acción Unificada por la Libertad Personal [Unified Action Group for Personal Freedom] (GAULA) and the National Army in Barranquilla. They hold that the disappearance and extrajudicial execution of the alleged victim was committed in retaliation for his activities as a union leader. In this regard, the petitioners allege that the information on context provided should be taken into account in order to determine the nature of the violations being alleged and the circumstances under which they were reportedly committed.

8. Regarding the facts, the petitioners allege that at noon on August 28, 2001, just as Jorge Freytter was arriving at his place of residence, located in the city of Barranquilla, he was taken by a group of “heavily armed” men who are said to have violently shoved him into a vehicle headed in an unknown direction. They allege that after he was abducted, Jorge Freytter was taken to an “airless warehouse” where he was reportedly kept handcuffed and was subjected to torture until he ultimately died of suffocation caused by a “bag” that had been used to cover his head.

9. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, the alleged extrajudicial execution is understood to have been committed by a state agent, and that such an occurrence was reportedly consistent with the way illegal armed groups acted in coordination with members of law enforcement in the department of Atlántico; this modus operandi was governed by an “agreement under [which] in operations in which [state law enforcement agents] were involved [,] people had to be executed.” The petitioners allege that–as a former member of the AUC implicated in this case reportedly testified–the site where the alleged victim is said to have been grabbed before his death was a place used for this type of operations where “people [were] held […] while information was extracted from them.”

10. The petitioners note that on the day...