Report No. 92 (2025) IACHR. Petition No. 13.606 (Colombia)

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

REPORT No. 92/25

CASE 13.606

REPORT ON FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

RAIZA ISABELA SALAZAR

COLOMBIA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II

Doc. 97

26 J. 2025

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on J. 26, 2025.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 92/25, C. 13.606. Friendly Settlement. R.I. Salazar. Colombia. J. 26, 2025.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 92/25

CASE 13.606

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

RAIZA ISABELA SALAZAR

COLOMBIA1

JUNE 26, 2025

1. SUMMARY AND RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT PROCESS

1. On September 3, 2012, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition field by the Asociación Líderes en Acción, Santamaría Fundación, G.H.R.P., Giomar Angélica Aguilar González, and Global Initiatives for Human Rights-Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights (GIHR-HA)2 (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging the international responsibility of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter the “S.” or “C. S.” or “Colombia”) for violation of the human rights set forth in Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial), 11 (privacy), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 24 (equal protection), and 25 (judicial protection), in relation to Articles 1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or “American Convention”) to the detriment of R.I.S. (hereinafter the “alleged victim”), for the alleged failure to investigate and criminally sanction the threats, assaults, and homicide attempts against her, because of her gender identity and expression, a situation that was said to have forced her to abandon her place of residence.

2. On May 4, 2018, the Commission issued Admissibility Report No. 46/18, in which it found the petition admissible and found that it was competent to hear the claim presented by the petitioners with respect to the alleged violation of the rights set forth in Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial), 11 (privacy), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 22 (freedom of movement and residence), 24 (equal protection), and 25 (judicial protection), contained in the American Convention, in keeping with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará.

3. On December 16, 2020, the C.S. expressed its willingness to pursue a friendly settlement in this case. On February 16, 2021, the petitioner agreed to initiate a negotiation process.

4. On M. 23, 2021, the Commission notified the parties of the formal initiation of the friendly settlement procedure and on May 25, 2021, in the city of Bogotá, Colombia, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding to pursue a friendly settlement in which a timetable would be agreed upon for the negotiations.

5. In the following months, the parties held bilateral meetings to analyze the measures of reparation to be included in the friendly settlement agreement (hereinafter referred to as “FSA” or “agreement”), which was signed by the parties in the city of Bogotá on August 8, 2022.

6. On A.3., 2023, the parties signed an amendment that partially modified the content of the friendly settlement agreement and subsequently, on May 14, 2024, the parties presented a joint report on the gains in completing the FSA and asked the IACHR to approve it, which they reiterated on October 8, 2024.

7. This friendly settlement report, in keeping with Article 49 of the Convention and Article 40(5) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, outlines the facts alleged by the petitioners and transcribes the friendly settlement agreement, which was signed on August 8, 2022, by the petitioner party and representatives of the C.S.. It also approves the agreement signed by the parties and agrees on the publication of the instant report in the IACHR’s Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

2. THE FACTS ALLEGED

8. The petitioners pointed out that the petition is framed in the context of violence suffered by trans people in Colombia by individuals as well as state agents. They stated that in Colombia there is no due protection of their rights, and that although the Constitutional Court has recognized rights to the LGBTI community and has issued orders to the public authority in order to make their protection effective, such orders have been circumvented. They argued that there is a prejudiced attitude in investigations related to crimes committed against LGBTI persons, which is mainly reflected in homicide investigations, by characterizing offenses as crimes of passion, and by erroneous collection and preservation of the evidence.

9. In the aforementioned context, they claimed that the alleged victim, R.I.S., is a transvestite woman who in 2001 acquired a property in the municipality of Dagua, Department of Valle, Colombia. They highlighted that since her arrival at the site, she was the victim of repeated threats from neighbors and butlers of the neighborhood, in order to force her to leave the place. They stated that this situation continued until 2005, when the threats worsened and came to be attacked with rubber bullets, receiving an impact on the head, seriously compromising one eye. They indicated that she was forced to leave her home that year, being recognized by the state as displaced. They affirmed that in 2009 she returned to reside in the property for personal reasons and, since the threats and violent acts continued, she decided to report the facts.

10. They added that in 2009, R.I.S. filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor and went to the Personería de Cali (Ombudsman Office in Cali) in order to receive protection. In the complaint, she alleged the repeated threats and persecution, indicating that since she arrived at the premises, her neighbors, the administrator and the steward together with their children and other relatives, "have dedicated themselves to making her life impossible" in order to force her to leave the place. In the same complaint, she denounced that she had to leave the place years ago because of the attack on her life, noting that she was wounded with a shotgun shot of pellets on her head, and detailed that in the month of October 2009 she received threats and insults, and that the accused threw garbage and horse feces, as well as rocks to her house, and that the accused entered her property by climbing on the roof, ordering her to leave, stating that they would kill her, saying first that "they were paramilitaries and then that they were with the guerrilla." They referred that in October 2009, the Ombudsman of Cali delegated the ombudsman of the Municipality of Dagua to do the follow-up of what had happened. They added that in J.2., she filed a right of petition to the Office of the Prosecutor to report the status of her complaint, without receiving a response, and that in December of that year she presented the case to the Prosecutor of Valle through the Santamaría Foundation. She noted that her complaint was processed as a contravention, which is known to the police authorities in accordance with the National Police Code, which they alleged constitutes a discriminatory treatment, as it involves actions that threaten life and integrity, which constitutes a crime and not contravention, which differs in the severity of the offense and the graduation of penalties, the offenses being minor offenses.

11. They alleged that the S. was aware of her situation since 2005 when she was granted the status of displaced by violence, and that despite having reported the facts, there has been no result in the investigations even though the persons who participated in the events have been individualized in her complaint. For the foregoing, they claimed that the exception contemplated in Article 46.2.c of the Convention is applicable given the unjustified delay in the decision...