Report No. 41 (2021) IACHR. Petition No. 13.642 (Colombia)

Year2021
Case TypeFriendly Settlements
Respondent StateColombia
CourtInter-American Comission of Human Rights
Report No. 41/21
















REPORT No. 41/21

CASE 13.642

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT REPORT


EDGAR JOSÉ SÁNCHEZ DUARTE AND FAMILY

COLOMBIA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 45

20 M. 2021

Original: Spanish



























Approved electronically by the Commission on M. 20, 2021.






Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 41/21, Case 13.642/Friendly Settlement. E.J. Sanchez Duarte and Family. Colombia. M. 20, 2021





www.cidh.org


REPORT No. 41/21

CASE 13.642

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

EDGAR JOSÉ SÁNCHEZ DUARTE

COLOMBIA
MARCH 20, 2021



  1. SUMMARY AND RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT PROCESS


  1. On February 1, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “IACHR”) received a petition presented by G.S.D. and Legal Option Collective Corporation of Lawyers [Corporación Colectivo de Abogados Opción Jurídica] in which the international responsibility of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter, “the S.” or “the Colombian S.”) was alleged for the extrajudicial execution of Mr. E.S.D. (hereinafter “the alleged victim”), by members of the defunct Anti-Kidnapping and Extortion Unit (hereinafter “UNASE”), in the city of Valledupar, in the department of Cesar as well as for the lack of investigation and punishment of those responsible for the events. It should be noted that UNASE was integrated with members of the National Police and the then Administrative Department of Security (DAS). The petitioning party alleged the violation of Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (personal integrity), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (judicial guarantees), 24 (equal protection of the law) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or the “American Convention”).


  1. The petitioners alleged that, although in the framework of the criminal proceedings, on J. 31, 1994, the Fourth Criminal C. of the Valledupar Circuit sentenced a retired National Army soldier to 30 years in prison for the crime of homicide, the criminal prosecution would not have continued with respect to the other two officers allegedly involved in the events, including a M.C. of UNASE, who would have been identified as an officer involved according to the confession obtained during the trial of the first convicted person. L., the petitioners alleged that, as a consequence of the aforementioned confession and subsequent request for the arrest of the Major, the relatives of the victims had been submitted to of intimidation by members of UNASE.


  1. L., the petitioners alleged the violation of the right of access to justice and equal protection of the law, given the contradiction of the decisions made in the two processes followed by the victims' family members to obtain financial compensation. The foregoing, on the grounds that the judicial authorities had ruled in one of the contentious administrative proceedings granting a reparation to two family members, and in the framework of a second proceeding, the compensation was denied to the other members of the family group.


  1. On J. 7, 2018, the IACHR issued Admissibility Report No. 81/18 on Case 13,642 E.J.S.D.a.F., in which it was concluded that the Commission was competent to examine the petition in relation to the alleged violation of Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (personal integrity), 8 (judicial guarantees), 17 (protection of the family), 24 (equal protection of the law) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention in concordance with its articles 1.1 and 2; and to declare the present petition inadmissible in relation to Article 7 (personal liberty) of the Convention.


  1. On May 23, 2019, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding to seek a friendly settlement in this case, together with a work schedule to advance on the negotiations, which turn out to be materialized with the signing of a friendly settlement agreement on J. 14, 2020 in Bogotá D.C.


  1. On December 9, 2020, the parties signed an addendum to the FSA and subsequently, on J. 29, 2021, submitted a joint report to inform on the progress in the implementation of the friendly settlement agreement and requested its approval by the Commission.


  1. In this friendly settlement report, as established in Article 49 of the Convention and in Article 40.5 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, a review of the facts alleged by the petitioning party is made and a transcription of the friendly settlement agreement, signed on J. 14, 2020 by the petitioners and representatives of the C.S., as well as its addendum of December 9, 2020. L., the agreement signed between the parties is approved and the publication of this report in the Annual Report of the IACHR to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.


  1. THE ALLEGED FACTS


  1. The petitioners alleged that, on September 13, 1993, Edgar S. Duarte was extra judicially executed after receiving three shots from a firearm by members of UNASE, a special group based in the Popa Battalion in Valledupar, Department of Cesar. According to the petitioners, the UNASE agents considered that the alleged victim was linked to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (F.A.R.C.), which is why the operation was deployed, in which, after several days of surveillance and monitoring finally, M.S.D. was killed when he was outside his home, in front of his wife and two children. The petitioners affirmed that witnesses to the events managed to write down the license plate of the vehicle from which the alleged victim was shot, which later made it possible to establish that it belonged to the cars assigned to UNASE and indicated that two days after the events, that is, on September 15, 1993, the same vehicle returned to the house of the alleged victim and the driver asked around for the victim's family, which caused them anguish and fear.


  1. According to what is alleged by the petitioners, as a result of the investigations initiated ex officio, on J. 31, 1994, the Fourth Criminal C. of the Valledupar Circuit sentenced a retired soldier of the National Army to 30 years in prison for the crime of murder. S. ruling was confirmed by the Valledupar Superior C. on October 27, 1994.The petitioners indicated that, in various statements, the convicted person confessed to have been the one who was driving the official vehicle, but also held a UNASE Major Commander and two other police officers responsible for the intellectual and material authorship of the alleged victim's death.


  1. The petitioners affirmed that, based on these statements, on J. 3, 1995, the Delegate Prosecutor's Office initiated a preliminary investigation against the other three officers, and on November 4, 1995, it had ordered the arrest of the M.C.. The petitioners indicated that, since said arrest, the relatives of the alleged victim began to receive intimidation, allegedly by members of UNASE, who in their vehicles were prowling and monitoring the home of M.S.D.'s parents to intimidate them.


  1. The petitioners indicated that, on November 14, 1995, the proceeding was referred to the Military Criminal Jurisdiction in consideration of the fact that those implicated were active members of the National Army. T., on November 16, 1995, the Second Instruction Brigade of Barranquilla decided to exclude one of the agents from the investigations, release the M.C., and continue the proceedings against the third officer involved. On J. 14, 1997, the Verbal Council of War ordered to cease the proceedings with respect to the M.C. and sentence the remaining officer. The petitioners indicated that on J. 2, 1998, the Superior M.C. abstained from hearing said appeal and referred the case to the Superior C. of the Valledupar Judicial District, considering that the facts were not related to military service.


  1. The petitioners reported that, within the framework of the criminal process followed in the ordinary jurisdiction, the preclusion was ordered with respect to the M.C. investigation. On the other hand, on J. 18, 2003, the Criminal C. of the Santa Marta Specialized Circuit sentenced the officer to 26 years’ imprisonment, for the crime of aggravated homicide. The conviction was confirmed by the Superior C. of Santa Marta on J. 22, 2004 and by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme C. of Justice on April 3, 2008.


  1. The petitioners indicated that the family members of the alleged victim presented two petitions for direct reparation against the Ministry of Defense in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The first filed by Mrs. C.I.U.R., ex-wife of Mr. S. Duarte, and his daughter Angélica María S. Uribe. In relation to said process, they stated that, on April 25, 1996, the Cesar Administrative C. approved a judicial conciliation between the plaintiff and the Ministry of Defense, which established the reparation in favor of Mrs. U.R. and her daughter.


  1. The second action for direct reparation was filed by the parents and siblings of the alleged victim, as well as by Mrs. Martha Cecilia Fuentes Gutiérrez and E.J. S. Fuentes, widow and son of Mr. S.D.. In the framework of this second proceeding, on February 6, 1997, the Cesar Administrative C. declared the Nation administratively responsible and ordered the payment of a compensation to the plaintiffs. H., due to the appeal of the defendant, said judgment was revoked on November 27, 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Council of S., considering that the military condition of those involved in the case did not automatically lead to the conclusion that they had acted as agents of the S..


  1. F. with this situation,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT