Report No. 71 (2009) IACHR. Petition No. 858-06 (Colombia)

• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Report Number: 71
• Petition Number: 858-06
• Year: 2009
• Respondent State: Colombia
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Alleged Victim: Masacre De Belen - Altavista

REPORT No. 71/09 PETITION 858-06 ADMISSIBILITY BELEN – ALTAVISTA MASSACRE COLOMBIA August 5, 2009 I. SUMMARY 1. On August 11, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by J.L.V.A. and N.M.G. (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging that agents of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the S.”) are responsible in the deaths of Samir Alonso Flórez, E. de J.C.A., M. de J.C.L., E.A.C.R., H. de J.E.A., the brothers O.A.M.A. and J. de J.M.A., G.O.P.M., N. de J.R.D., Johnny Alexander Ramirez Lujan, B. de J.R.G., Juan Jose Sanchez Vasco, J.S.O., N. de J.U.P., Carlos Gonzalo Usma Patiño, L. de J.V.R., and the injuries sustained by Y.J.A. and C.A.P.R., on J. 29, 1996, in the Belen-Altavista district of the city of Medellín, department of Antioquia, and for the failure of its judicial system to clarify the events. 2. The petitioners maintain that the S. is responsible for violation of the right to life, the right to humane treatment, the right to a fair trial, the right to honor and dignity, and the right to judicial protection, recognized in articles 4, 5, 8, 11 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”), to the detriment of the 18 above-named persons and their next of kin, thereby violating the obligations set forth in articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, namely to respect and ensure the rights protected under the Convention and to adopt the necessary domestic legislative measures. The petitioners invoke the exception allowed under Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention to the rule requiring prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. For its part, the S. alleges that the petitioners’ claims are inadmissible, as agents of the S. bore no responsibility in the events; that the petitioners are attempting to use the IACHR as a higher court; that the criminal proceedings have not been exhausted, and that the claim to the exceptions allowed under Article 46(2) of the American Convention is out of order. 3. A. analyzing the parties’ positions and compliance with the requirements stipulated in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to declare the case admissible for purposes of examining the alleged violation of articles 2, 4(1), 5(1), 8, 11 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. It also decided to notify the parties of the report and to order that it be published in the Commission’s annual report. II PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION 4. The Commission received the petition on August 11, 2006, which was registered as number P858-06. The relevant parts were forwarded to the S. on April 14, 2008, in keeping with Article 30(2) of the Rules of Procedure, so that it might submit its response. 5. The S. submitted its response on J. 17, 2008, which was forwarded to the petitioners on August 7, 2008, so that they might present their observations. On September 4, 2008, the petitioners requested an extension, which was granted. The petitioners sent their observations on November 20, 2008, which were forwarded to the S. for its observations. On December 24, 2008, the S. requested an extension, which was granted on J. 7, 2009. On J. 30, 2009, the S. submitted its final observations. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners 6. The petitioners allege that between late 1995 and early 1996, members of the National Army and the National Police of Colombia carried out intelligence activities in the “Belen-Altavista” district of the city of Medellin to identify alleged guerrilla members (urban cells of subversive groups) that supposedly were operating and living there. They allege that the forces of law and order operated clandestinely, under the guise of so-called “Civic Brigades”. The latter were staging what were seemingly social activities, where photographic intelligence on the residents of the district was gathered with the idea of putting together an intelligence file. Y. people in public establishments were also photographed. They contend that no court order was ever issued allowing these activities to be conducted. 7. The petitioners observe that at 8:30 p.m. on J. 29, 1996, approximately ten men -carrying weapons used solely by the military forces and wearing accessories (vests and bracelets) that were the hallmark of the Prosecution O.’s Technical Investigation Corps [Cuerpo Técnico de Investigación – CTI]- came to Belen-Altavista’s local bus terminal where they forced all the occupants of a public bus to get off, took a number of people in the vicinity and forced them all to stand in a row, where they questioned them about the whereabouts of alleged guerrilla members who purportedly lived in the area. 8. The petitioners state that when they did not get an answer, and after checking a photographic file and establishing that none of the people they were looking for were there, the armed men opened fire against the people they were holding. They contend that as a result 16 people died and four were seriously injured. The petitioners state that the perpetrators left the scene in three vehicles and threatened that they would be back. When they withdrew, they left behind photographs that the National Army had taken months earlier in their “civic” activities. 9. The petitioners allege that while the massacre was being committed, the Police kept the area cordoned off four blocks away, and that vehicles and journalists were denied access on the grounds that “an arrest is underway up there”. The petitioners contend that the Army had been at the scene of the events on the afternoon of the very same day and that there is a military post just three minutes away. They note that in the wake of the massacre, no action was taken to catch the perpetrators and that the Army, which patrols the area constantly, did not show up until around 11:00 p.m., by which time there was nothing to be done. 10. The petitioners allege that in their response to the petition the S. has tried to portray the victims of the massacre as members of unlawful armed groups, allegedly guerrilla members of the National Liberation Army [Ejército de Liberación Nacional] (ELN). It has done this without producing any evidence. They allege that the victims’ next of kin were the targets of social censure and their good name was smeared, all of which compounded the pain of having lost their loved ones under the circumstances that are the subject of the petition. 11. In response to the S.’s allegation that the massacre “was the climax of a series of clashes between cells of guerillas that were engaged in crime in the area (see infra III. B), the petitioners consider this tantamount to accusing the victims of being involved in criminal activities. They contend that the S.’s assertion is unfounded, since no court has ever established that those who were killed –while defenseless- were in fact criminals or members of guerrillas. The petitioners consider this a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence and of the right of the affected families to have their dignity recognized.[3] 12. As for exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law, the petitioners state that on the very day the events occurred, the O. of the Prosecutor General of the Nation, acting ex officio, launched preliminary investigation No. 265 for the crimes of homicide and battery. They indicate further that later a formal investigation was instituted for the crime of homicide, under Case No. 20,858. The criminal investigation that has been underway for thirteen years is still ongoing. The petitioners allege that ten years after the events took place, testimony was still being taken, and there was no certain prospect in sight that those responsible would be tried and convicted. 13. The petitioners state that in its report of J. 8, 1998, the O. of the Prosecutor General of the Nation found that the National Army’s Fourth Brigade, headquartered in Medellín, had intelligence reports on file related to alleged members of the “Popular Militias of the E.L.N.” supposedly operating in the “Aguas Frías”, “Violetas” and “Altavista” districts of Medellin. The petitioners state that in these records, the O. of the Prosecutor General found a photographic album in which various persons were identified, and said that one of them “[ ] is very similar to one left at the scene of the massacre and that is already part of the present photo-reproduction inquiry; according to statements and testimony given by the persons photographed, the pictures were taken by Army personnel”.[4] The petitioners contend that while evidence in the investigation incriminates agents of the security forces, the persons named as the allegedly guilty parties are the so-called members of the bands and guerillas. They assert that the fact that this investigation is still only in the preliminary phase constitutes an unwarranted delay in the proceeding, which is the condition provided in Article 46(2(c) of the American Convention as grounds for an exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies. 14. The petitioners state further that the A. General’s O. launched a disciplinary investigation that uncovered serious irregularities; even so, on M.9., 2001, it decided to close the investigation once and for all, as in its view the matter was nonjusticiable, inasmuch asthe author of a possible disciplinary offense is neither named nor identified. The petitioners state that the arguments given in the decision acknowledge[ ] there is information that is undoubtedly compromising evidence of the conduct of public servants, who in this case were members of the National Army; because of this, the government had to establish whether members of the National Army had in fact taken photographs of the...