Report No. 96 (2025) IACHR. Petition No. 13.778 (Colombia)

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

REPORT No. 96/25

CASE 13.778

REPORT ON FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

JORGE ALIRIO PULGARIN DUQUE, J.A.P. DUQUE AND FAMILY

COLOMBIA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II

Doc. 101

26 J. 2025

Original: Spanish

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

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 96/25, C. 13.778. Friendly Settlement. J.A. P. Duque, J.A.P.D.a.F.. Colombia. J. 26, 2025.

www.iachr.org

REPORT No. 96/25

CASE 13.778

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

JORGE ALIRIO PULGARIN DUQUE, J.A.P. DUQUE AND FAMILY

COLOMBIA1
JUNE 26, 2025

1. SUMMARY AND RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT PROCESS

1. On October 7, 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or "IACHR") received a petition filed by O.D.V. Posada (hereinafter "the petitioning party" or "the petitioner"), alleging the international responsibility of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter "S." or "C. S." or "Colombia"), for the violation of the human rights set forth in Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (judicial guarantees), and 11 (protection of honor and dignity) of the American Convention on Human Rights, (hereinafter "Convention" or "American Convention"), for the alleged extrajudicial executions of the brothers J.A.P.D. and Juan Amado P. Duque (hereinafter "the alleged victims" or "the P.D. brothers") by agents of the National Army, the ongoing impunity, and lack of effective judicial protection in the judicial proceedings relating to the facts.

2. On April 24, 2019, the Commission issued Admissibility Report No. 48/19, in which it declared the petition admissible and declared its competence to hear the claim presented by the petitioning party regarding the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), Articles 8 (judicial guarantees), 11 (protection of honor and dignity), and 25 (judicial protection), of the American Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with the obligation to respect rights established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (duty to adopt provisions of domestic law).

3. On January 29, 2021, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding to seek a friendly settlement, along with a timeline to move forward in the negotiations. In the following months, the parties held bilateral meetings with the purpose of analyzing the measures of reparation to be included in the friendly settlement agreement (hereinafter “FSA” or “Agreement”), which resulted in the signing of said instrument on October 18, 2024, in the city of Bogotá. S., on December 2, 2024, the parties presented a joint report on the progress made in the implementation of the FSA and requested the IACHR to approve it. On February 24, 2025, the parties submitted to the Commission an Addendum to the original FSA and reiterated their request for approval.

4. P. to Articles 49 of the American Convention and 40(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, this friendly settlement report includes a summary of the facts alleged by the petitioner and transcribes the friendly settlement agreement signed on October 18, 2024, by the petitioning party and representatives of 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. The petitioning party alleged that on February 26, 1993, the brothers J.A.P.D. and J.A.P.D., drivers of public service vehicles of the Department of Antioquia, were transporting four passengers from the municipality of Segovia to the municipality of Remedios, when several soldiers of the 42nd Infantry Battalion of Bombona of the National Army stopped their vehicle. According to the petition, once stopped and when the vehicle was about to be inspected, one of the passengers began to shoot at the soldiers, who opened fire on them, causing the death of the P. Duque brothers and the other four passengers they were transporting.

6. In the petition, it was argued that the death of the P.D. brothers was caused by the excessive use of force by members of the National Army who fired disproportionately against all the occupants of the vehicle, without the alleged victims being related with the passengers who caused the events.2 The petition also claimed that the investigation and clarification of the facts related to the death of the P.D. brothers affected the dignity and reputation of both the alleged victims and their families.

7. The petitioner recounted that on M. 1, 1993, an order was issued to open a criminal investigation for the crime of kidnapping and homicide at the Segovia Prosecutor's Office Unit, where a series of inspections were carried out based on the judicial proceedings. Among them: medical examinations of the six bodies found, an ocular inspection of the vehicle used by the P.D. brothers for the transportation services they offered, and a third inspection of the valuables found at the site. S., statements were reportedly taken from seven soldiers who were at the scene of the confrontation, as well as a statement from the owner of the vehicle. In said statements, as indicated in the petition, the witnesses were asked to describe what happened and specify the time and persons who carried out the attacks. Based on their declarations, it reportedly transpired that the passenger who started shooting at the soldiers was in the rear of the vehicle. It was noted, however, that there were more people attacking the soldiers when the passenger opened fire on them.

8. L., A.A.T. was reportedly identified as one of the passengers in the vehicle driven by the P.D. brothers. According to the investigation, Areiza Torres was allegedly found in the trunk of the car and had been violently abducted from his home earlier that same night. For this reason, it was suggested that the discovery of his body led to the alleged victims being linked to the group responsible for his kidnapping. However, the testimony of a police inspector indicated that no signs of violence consistent with a kidnapping were observed at the scene.

9. According to what was highlighted in the petition, on May 12, 1993, the Regional Prosecutor decided to revoke of the order of M. 1, 1993, to open an investigation, and ordered the proceedings to be returned to preliminary investigation stage. On J. 10, 1993, the Regional Directorate of the Prosecutor's Office of Medellín declared itself not competent to hear the case for the crimes of homicide and kidnapping, and therefore decided to transfer jurisdiction to the military criminal courts of the S. and declare that the possibility of bringing criminal charges had lapsed, since those who might have intervened in the facts died at the time. Therefore, on J. 12, 1993, the 50th Court of Military Criminal Instruction agreed that it was competent to hear the case.

10. On J. 30, 1994, the 50th Judge of Military Criminal Instruction declined to open criminal proceedings since, according to the petition, they considered that the military personnel involved acted in legitimate self-defense against the aggression and the imminent danger to their personal safety; that said acts were performed in compliance with their duties as members of the state's security forces, in defense of their interests; and therefore could not be blamed. The petitioner also recounted that no disciplinary action was initiated, and that no member of the military was punished.

11. The petitioning party stated that in November 1994, Carlos Eduardo P. Duque, brother of the alleged victims, filed a complaint with the Antioquia Departmental Prosecutor General's Office, to initiate a criminal investigation into the murder of his brothers in search of a response to the events of February 23, 1993. According to the petition, by an order dated J. 27, 1995, the Prosecutor General's Office ordered a more in-depth investigation, since the responsibility of the National Army had not been accredited. This investigation resulted in the referral of the records of the proceedings to the Segovia Prosecutor's Office and the 50th Court of Military Criminal Instruction. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the petitioner alleged that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the military personnel involved were not punished, given that they were exempted from criminal liability on the grounds of legitimate self-defense. The reason being that the only...