Report No. 94 (2025) IACHR. Petition No. 14.304 (Colombia)

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

REPORT No. 94/25

CASE 14.304

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

JHON FREDY LOPERA JARAMILLO AND FAMILY

COLOMBIA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II

Doc. 99

26 J. 2025

Original: Spanish

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

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 94/25, C. 14.304. Friendly Settlement. J.F. L.J. and Family. Colombia. J. 26, 2025.

www.iachr.org

REPORT No. 94/25

CASE 14.304

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

JHON FREDY LOPERA AND FAMILY

COLOMBIA1
JUNE 26, 2025

1. SUMMARY AND RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT PROCESS

1. On July 8, 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or "IACHR") received a petition filed by J.L.V. Posada (hereinafter "the petitioner" or "the petitioning party"), alleging the international responsibility of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter "S." or "C. S." or "Colombia"), for the violation of the human rights contemplated in Articles I (life, liberty, security, and integrity of the person), XI (preservation of health and well-being) and XVIII (justice) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter "the American Declaration") and Articles 4 (life), 5 (personal integrity), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (judicial guarantees), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, (hereinafter "Convention" or "American Convention"), following the disappearance of P.J.F.L.J. (hereinafter "the alleged victim") on October 31, 1997, while he was performing his compulsory military service in the P.N. Ospina Military Battalion and where he was assigned to the fort called "El Cerro" located in the Department of Antioquia, as well as for the lack of criminal investigation of the facts and for the refusal of the domestic judges to declare the Nation responsible for his death.

2. On November 22, 2020, the Commission issued Admissibility Report No. 341/20, in which it declared the petition admissible and its competence to hear the claim presented by the petitioning party regarding the alleged violation of rights upheld in Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (personal integrity), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (judicial guarantees), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (duty to adopt provisions of domestic law) of the same instrument.

3. On September 19, 2023, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at reaching a friendly settlement in this case, together with a work schedule. In the following months, the parties held bilateral meetings to analyze the reparation measures to be included in the friendly settlement agreement (hereinafter “FSA”), which resulted in the signing of said instrument on May 23, 2024, in the city of Bogotá. S., on May 29, 2024, the parties presented a joint report on the progress made in the implementation of the FSA and requested the IACHR to approve it.

4. This friendly settlement report, in accordance with Article 49 of the Convention and Article 40(5) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, provides an overview of the facts alleged by the petitioning party and includes the friendly settlement agreement signed on May 23, 2024, between the petitioning party and the C. S.. A., the Commission hereby approves the agreement signed by the parties and decides to publish this report in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

2. THE FACTS ALLEGED

5. According to the petitioning party's allegations, on May 21, 1996, the alleged victim joined the C. Armed Forces to perform compulsory military service and was assigned to the P.N. Ospina Military Engineering Battalion and to the fort known as "El Cerro" located in the Department of Antioquia. According to the regulations, L.J.'s military service was supposed to end on November 11, 1997. On October 26, 1997, the alleged victim reportedly contacted his family to invite them to the closing ceremony of his military service, which was to take place on November 8, 1997; an event to which his relatives arrived and were met with the news that the alleged victim had been seen for the last time on October 31, 1997. In response to the questions raised by the relatives of the young L.J., the National Army reportedly indicated that he had deserted. The relatives of the alleged victim considered the accusation unfounded, since they were aware of his interest in continuing his military career. S., the National Army reportedly went to the 118^th C. of Military Criminal Instruction to initiate a desertion proceeding against the alleged victim, which ended with a conviction.

6. Due to the disappearance of the alleged victim from the installations of the military battalion, on February 10, 1998, the 118^th C. of Military Criminal Instruction reportedly declared the young L.J. absent and ordered him to be placed under preventive detention; and on February 23, 1998, he was reportedly sentenced to seven months of arrest for desertion. B. of the disappearance of the alleged victim and after the criminal conviction for desertion in the military jurisdiction, Mrs. Ana Rocio de L.J., mother of the alleged victim, reportedly filed a complaint with the Antioquia Regional Ombudsman's O. for the conviction and lack of investigation of the facts that led to the disappearance of her son while he was in compulsory military service. C., the case was reportedly brought before the Superior Military C., which on March 5, 1999 revoked the decision issued by the 118^th C. of Military Criminal Instruction, since for the Superior Military C. it had not been possible to ascertain whether the alleged victim had indeed deserted or had been killed by some illegal group, so that he could not be criminally convicted for the crime of desertion.

7. The petitioning party also alleged that the mother of the alleged victim had informed the Ministry of Defense of the disappearance of her son, and in response to that letter, the head of the Human Rights Group of the Ministry of Defense, through official letter No. 0895-MDASE-HD-725 of J. 30, 1998, reportedly informed the mother of the alleged victim that, on October 31, 1997, the young Lopera Jaramillo had gone to wash his uniform in the Calderas River in the municipality of San Carlos de Antioquia, and that his whereabouts since then were unknown. L., it was reported that the A. General's O. was conducting a preliminary investigation (case file No. 1503), which had made no progress as of the date of submission of this petition. At the same time, the family reportedly also filed a criminal complaint before the ordinary jurisdiction, in the 95^th Sectional Prosecutor's O. of the Unit for Crimes against Sexual Freedom and Human Dignity (case file No. 8849-95), but said complaint had been shelved.

8. Following the criminal action brought against the alleged victim by the Military Jurisdiction, on November 20, 1997, Mrs. Ana Rocio Lopera Jaramillo, sister of the alleged victim, filed a complaint with the Antioquia regional Ombudsman's O., bringing the disappearance of the 24-year-old to the attention of that entity. In addition, on November 12, 2007, M.L.D.L.J. reportedly filed another complaint with the Departmental Prosecutor’s O. of Antioquia regarding the disappearance of her son, against the National Army and reportedly accused the commanders of the battalion to which the alleged victim had been sent; this complaint was filed under number 1503, as a result of which, on November 2, 1999, the Permanent Human Rights O. was sub-commissioned to carry out the relevant inquiries, an investigation conducted under number 008- 009525-97.

9. As a consequence of the disappearance of the alleged victim, his family also filed an administrative litigation suit before the Administrative Litigation C. of Antioquia in which the then plaintiffs claimed full compensation for the damages caused by the disappearance of the young L.J.. That lawsuit was reportedly filed in 1998, but on May 24, 2005, the claims for reparations were denied. B. of this reason, an appeal was filed before the Council of S. on July 7, 2005. H., the C. rejected the appeal and proceeded to file the case as it was a sole instance proceeding.

3. FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

10. On May 23, 2024, in Bogotá, the parties signed a friendly settlement agreement, which reads as follows:

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

CASE NO....