Report No. 50 (2010) IACHR. Petition No. 2779-02 (Colombia)

• Petition Number: 2779-02
• Report Number: 50
• Year: 2010
• Alleged Victim: Aranzazu Meneses de Jiménez
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Respondent State: Colombia
• Case Type: Admissibility

14

REPORT No. 50/10¹

PETITION 2779-02

ADMISSIBILITY

ARANZAZU MENESES DE JIMÉNEZ

COLOMBIA

M. 18, 2010

I. SUMMARY

1. On August 19, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“the IACHR” or “the Commission”) received a petition lodged by the J.A.R.L.’ Collective Corporation (“the petitioners”) alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Colombia (“the S.,” “the C.S.,” or “Colombia”) in its failure to comply with the judgment handed down on February 21, 2002, by the Family and Labor Civil Chamber of the Superior C. of the C. Judicial District, which affected the life and physical integrity of A.M. de J. and her family, and in its failure to investigate and punish those responsible for the threats made against the alleged victim and for the attack she suffered on August 6, 2001, in the city of Florencia, department of C..

2. The petitioners claimed that the S. was responsible for violating the right to life, to humane treatment, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention” or “the American Convention”), in conjunction with Articles 1.1 of that same instrument and Articles 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. D. the processing of the petition, it was expanded to include claims regarding violations of the right personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to movement and residence, enshrined in Articles 7, 8, and 22 of the American Convention, and of the right to work enshrined in Articles 6 and 7 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (“Protocol of San Salvador”).

3. In response, the S. claimed that the petitioners’ contentions were inadmissible on the grounds that they would be seeking to have the Commission act as a fourth instance, that there was no characterization of facts that would tend to establish violations of Articles 7 and 22 of the American Convention, and that the Commission lacked the competence to hear violations of Articles 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Salvador. In turn, the petitioners claimed that in connection with the noncompliance with the protective judgment of February 21, 2002, they had met the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention, through that ruling, and that in connection with the attack on the alleged victim and the threats made against her, more than eight years after the incident the investigations have not succeeded in identifying and punishing the guilty, triggering the exception to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies rule established in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention.

4. After analyzing the positions of the parties and the petition’s compliance with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to rule the claim admissible for the purpose of examining the alleged violation of Articles 8.1, 22, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established by Article 1.1 thereof; to rule it inadmissible as regards Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof and Articles 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Salvador through the failure to comply with the judgment handed down on February 21, 2002, by the Family and Labor Civil Chamber of the C. Judicial District Superior C., as well as Articles 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; to notify the parties of that decision; and to order its publication.

II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

5. On J.6., 2002, the IACHR received a request for precautionary measures on behalf of A.M. de J.. On J. 10, 2002, the Commission asked the S. to return information within the following 15 days. On J. 3, 2002, the IACHR received a submission from the petitioners containing additional information on the situation of A.M., which was conveyed to the S. on J. 10, 2002. On J. 15, 2002, the S. lodged a submission containing the information requested by the IACHR, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their comments.

6. On August 19, 2002, the IACHR received a petition that was recorded as No. P-2779/02 and, after conducting a preliminary analysis, the IACHR conveyed a copy of its relevant parts to the S. on September 13, 2002, with a deadline of 20 days for it to return information in compliance with Article 30.4 of its Rules of Procedure. T.S. submitted its comments on O. 11, 2002, and they were forwarded to the petitioners for their comments. On December 4, 2002, the Commission received a communication with additional information from the S., which was forwarded to the petitioners with a 15-day deadline for comments. On December 12, 2002, the IACHR received a communication from the petitioners suggesting a proposal for friendly settlement, which was conveyed to the S. for its comments.

7. In response, the S. requested a 30-day extension for submitting its comments, which was granted by the IACHR. On O. 25, 2004, the Commission again asked the S. for information. On December 16, 2005, the Commission received a comments submission from the S., which was forwarded to the petitioners for their comments. On A. 6, 2009, the Commission asked the petitioners for up-to-date information on the case. On J. 7, 2009, the Commission received a communication from the petitioners, which was conveyed to the S. for its comments. T.S. submitted its comments on August 17, 2009, and they were forwarded to the petitioners for their comments. On September 4, 2009, the S. submitted a communication relating to its comments submission of August 17, 2009, which was forwarded to the petitioners for comments. On September 28, 2009, the Commission received a comments submission from the petitioners, which was forwarded to the S. for its comments. On November 3, 2009, the S. presented its final comments.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Petitioners

8. As background information, the petitioners state that their contentions are framed by a context of aggression against health service workers in Colombia. In their submissions, the petitioners made claims regarding three situations: an attack on the victim, and threats made against her; the alleged noncompliance with a protective remedy intended to safeguard her right to security and employment; and her subsequent displacement and its consequences.

9. They claim that at the time of the incidents, there was a pattern of failing to respect the special protection afforded the medical profession and the rights of health sector workers. They state, for example, that in September 2001, the management of the M. Inmaculada Hospital in Florencia, department of C., reported threats against four of its employees, including Aranzazu Meneses de J..² They also maintain that their claim showcases the impact of forced displacement, particularly on women.

10. F. of all, the petitioners note that between 1998 and 2002, a demilitarized zone (zona de distensión) was established, which hosted the peace talks between the Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). It comprised the municipalities of La Macarena, M., U., and Vista Hermosa in the department of Meta, and the municipality of San Vicente del Caguán (headquarters for the talks) in the department of C..

11. The petitioners report that on August 1, 1994, A.M. de J. assumed her position as General Services Operator at the M. Inmaculada Hospital in Florencia, C. department. The state that following the murder of her husband A.C.R. on January 18, 2001, allegedly at the hands of...