Report IACHR. Case No. 11.641 (Colombia)

• Year: 2020
• Case Number: 11.641
• Submitted Date: 08 August 2020
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Type: Cases in the Court
• Alleged Victim: Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio and family
• Respondent State: Colombia

REPORT No. 149/14

CASE 11.641

REPORT ON MERITS

PEDRO JULIO MOVILLA GALARCIO AND FAMILY

COLOMBIA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. XX

XX A. 2014

Original: English

Approved by the Commission at its session No. XX held on December XX, 2018
170 Regular Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. XX/18, C. 11.641.

M.. P.J.M.G. and family. Colombia. [D. of adoption].

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. XX/18

CASO 11.641

MERITS

PEDRO JULIO MOVILLA GALARCIO AND FAMILY

COLOMBIA1

DATE.

1. SUMMARY

1. On J. 17, 1996, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition submitted by the José Alvear Restrepo L.yer’s Association (Corporación Colectivo de Abogados “J.A.R., CCAJAR) (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging the international responsibility of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the C.S., “the S. or “Colombia”) to the detriment of P.J.M. Galarcio.

2. The Commission approved admissibility report No. 48/14 on J.2.4, 20142, which was notified to the parties, being at their disposal in order to reach a friendly settlement. The parties were provided statutory deadlines to present their additional observations about the merits. All the information received was duly distributed between the parties.

3. The petitioners alleged that on M. 13, 1993 at 8.00 a.m., Pedro Julio M. Galarcio disappeared after leaving his daughter at school. The petitioners blamed the S. responsible for the disappearance and indicated that it was triggered by his political and union activities. The petitioners indicated that to date the whereabouts of the alleged victim remain unknown, and also alleged the lack of an effective investigation.

4. The S. indicated that it has carried out internal processes for the search of P.J.M.G. as well as for the persecution of the perpetrators. It alleged that it is not internationally responsible for the disappearance because there is no sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the victim was last seen in the in the hands of S. agents, nor it is responsible for the rest of the violations alleged.

5. B. on factual and legal determinations, the Commission resolved that the C.S. is responsible for the violation of the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment, personal liberty, fair trial, freedom of association and judicial protection set forth at Articles 3, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1, 16 and 25.1 in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument detrimental to the persons indicated throughout this report. M., the Commission concludes that the S. is responsible for the violations of A.I. a) and b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter “the IACFDP”). The Commission formulated the respective recommendations.

2. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS

1. The petitioners

6. The petitioners indicated that J.M.G. was an outstanding union leader, left-wing political supporter and social activist from Colombia. T. highlighted that due to his activities, he had to forcefully displace in two occasions, being Bogotá his last place of residence. The petitioners alleged that on M. 13, 1993 at 8.00 a.m., P.J.M.G. left his home at 8:00 a.m. to leave his daughter at the school’s entrance.

7. T. indicated that the alleged victim had to pick up his daughter at 11.00 a.m., but he never arrived and since then his whereabouts are unknown. T. added that on that same day his wife reported him missing; and that the Association of Relatives of Detainees-Disappeared (Asociación de familiares de detenidos – desaparecidos) (hereinafter “the ASFADDES”) initiated particular searches. T. indicated that the disappearance is imputable to the S. in view of testimonies gathered that confirm the presence of suspicious persons near the place in which M.G. was last seen, the military intelligence actions to which him and his family were subjected to due to the alleged connection to the People’s Liberating Army (Ejército Popular de Liberación) (hereinafter, “EPL”) and the lack of diligence in the investigations, which remain at the preliminary stage. T. added that the disciplinary process before the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la Nación), (hereinafter “the PGN”) on M. 18, 1993, it was provisionally archived a second time on J. 2001. The petitioners informed that the action for direct reparation before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction was rejected in the year 2011.

8. T. alleged that the S. is responsible for the violation to the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment, and personal liberty of P.J.M.G. for his forced disappearance. T. indicated the violation to the right to personal integrity of his relatives. The petitioners affirmed that the S. violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection of P.J.M.G. and his family given that after more than 20 years, impunity remains. T. alleged that the facts were not investigated as a forced disappearance; that there was a refusal to address all the logic lines of investigation; and that limited actions were carried out for the search. T. alleged that the relatives have not been heard before an independent and impartial court. T. also alleged the violation to the right to freedom of association of Pedro Julio M. Galarcio due to the lack of guarantees to perform, free from harassment, his labors as union activist and member of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Partido Comunista Colombiano-Marxista Leninista) (hereinafter “the PCC-ML”).

2. The S.

9. The S. alleged that it is not responsible for the violation to the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment and personal liberty of P.J.M.G. given that in the internal processes sufficient evidence has been provided, which does not prove that the events occurred as declared by the petitioners. It indicated the disciplinary process was filed a second time because the PGN considered that the evidence does not even show slight signs of the participation of S. agents. It highlighted that in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, the rejection was based on the lack of evidence.

10. It affirmed that the international responsibility for forced disappearance intends to foist itself solely by means of contextual elements and under an alleged state systematic pattern against social and union leaders that has not been demonstrated. It indicated that the facts are not similar to other contexts of forced disappearances under the notion of “internal enemy” and that the registration of notes about the alleged victim on the part of the National Army does not generate certainty regarding the participation of state agents. The S. alleged that there is no evidence that may indicate that the alleged victim was last seen in the hands of the S..

11. It indicated that it is not responsible for the alleged violation to the right to humane treatment of the relatives given that the authorities have not been indifferent nor have they omitted they duty to investigate. The S. added that it investigated the facts in a criminal and disciplinary way and that the relatives agreed to a direct reparation, besides the unfavorable result. It affirmed that it is not responsible for the alleged violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection; even though it recognized that there have been difficulties that have been reflected in the lack of satisfactory results. It alleged that it is not responsible for the alleged violation to the right to freedom of association of Mr. M.G. given that there is no evidence of the threats or of the aforementioned forced displacement nor of the fact that they might have been a consequence of his union and political activities.

3. FACTUAL ANALYSIS

1. Context of human rights violations against trade unionists in Colombia and the forced disappearance in the context of the armed conflict

12. Since the early sixties, the Armed Forces adopted as own the so called “national security doctrine,” which was taken by D. 3398 of 1965, which subsequently became L. 48 from 1968 named “Organic by-law of National Defense” (Estatuto...