Report No. 25 (2021) IACHR. Petition No. 12.780 (Colombia)

• Year: 2021
• Case Type: Merits
• Respondent State: Colombia
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

REPORT No. 25/20

CASE 12.780

REPORT ON MERITS (PUBLICATION)

CARLOS ARTURO BETANCOURT ESTRADA AND FAMILY

COLOMBIA

Approved by the Commission electronically on A. 22, 2020

Cite as: IACHR. Report No. 25/20. C. 12.780. Merits (Publication). Carlos Arturo B. Estrada and family. Colombia. A. 22, 2020.

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.169

Doc. XX

XX October 2018

Original: English

www.cidh.org

\

OEA/Ser.L/V/II

Doc. 35

A. 22, 2020

Original: Spanish

INDE

I. SUMMARY 2

II. CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES 2

A. Petitioner 2

B. S. 3

III. FINDINGS OF FACT 3

A. Context 3

B. Available information on the alleged victim and his family 4

C. Facts of the case 4

1. The kidnapping (November 14, 1999) and release (February 17, 2000) of C.A.B. Estrada 5

2. The post-release threats, abandoning the territory of Colombia, and the impact of monetary losses on the life of the B. family 6

3. The judicial investigation of the abduction 7

IV. ANALYSIS OF LAW 9

A. Rights to personal integrity (Article 5.1), to personal liberty and security (Article 7.1), and to freedom of movement and residence (Article 22.1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof 9

1. General considerations related to the prevention and protection component of the obligation to ensure rights 9

2. S. considerations regarding the obligation of ensuring rights in the context of kidnapping for ransom committed by non-state actors 11

3. A. of the duty of prevention and protection in the case of Carlos Arturo B. Estrada 13

B. The right to personal integrity (Article 5.1) and the right to freedom of movement and residence (Article 22.1), in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the American Convention 15

C. Right to a fair trial and to judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25.1 of the American Convention), in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof 16

1. S. governing due diligence, initiative, and reasonable time in the Inter-American system 16

2. Due diligence in investigating the kidnapping for ransom of Carlos Arturo B. Estrada 17

3. A. of the reasonable time standard in the criminal investigation of C.A.B.E.’s kidnapping 18

4. Conclusion 19

V. MERITS REPORT No. 108/18 19

VI. PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO MERITS REPORT No. 108/18 19

VII. REPORT NO. 107 /19 AND INFORMATION REGARDING COMPLIANCE 20

VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 22

IX. NOTIFICATION 23

1. SUMMARY1

1. On September 18, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by attorney J.V. Posada (hereinafter “the petitioner”) alleging the international responsibility of Colombia (hereinafter “the C.S.,” “the S.,” or “Colombia”) with respect to Carlos Arturo B. Estrada (hereinafter “the alleged victim” or “Mr. B.”) and his family.

2. The Commission adopted Report on Admissibility No. 122/10 on October 23, 2010.2 On November 10, 2010, the Commission served notice of that report to the parties and made itself available to reach a friendly settlement; however, that procedure was not activated because the agreement of the two parties was not obtained. The petitioner and the S. were given the deadlines established in the Rules of Procedure for presenting their additional comments on the merits. All the information received was duly conveyed between the parties.

3. The petitioner claimed that M.B. was abducted by C. guerrillas on November 14, 1999, and that, after the ransom demanded by the kidnappers was paid, he was released on February 17, 2000. He stated that before the kidnapping, a threat was received and duly reported, but that the S. afforded no protection. The threats continued after the alleged victim was released, the petitioner added, and so M.B. and members of his family were forced to leave the country out of fear of reprisals and the absence of S. protection. T. caused an interruption of their life plans, a profound impact, and monetary losses. To date, he said, the criminal investigation has not been successful in identifying the perpetrators or punishing them.

4. The S. said that it guaranteed access to justice and pursued the relevant formalities in connection with the kidnapping and the threats. Regarding the threats of abduction, the S. said that it was not informed about that possible situation, and so it was unable to prevent it; consequently, international responsibility could not be attributable. It claimed that it furnished the family with all the available tools for negotiating with the kidnappers, to the extent that was possible. It added that the delay in pursuing the formalities was connected with the family’s level of participation in the process.

5. B. on its findings of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the S. was responsible for the violation of Articles 5.1 (right to integrity), 7.1 (personal liberty and security), 22.1 (free movement and residence), 8.1 (right to a fair trial), and 25.1 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in conjunction with the obligations set out in Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Carlos Arturo B. Estrada and his family. The Commission issued the corresponding recommendations.

2. CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner

6. The petitioner contended that C.A.B.E. was abducted in Medellín, Colombia, on November 14, 1999, and that he was held in captivity by an illegal armed group until February 17, 2000, when his family paid the ransom. He stated that the day before the abduction, the alleged victim received an anonymous threatening telephone call informing him that “something unpleasant was about to happen”; he reported this by telephone to the local police, who replied that “when what had to happen happened, they would be there.” He added that during his kidnapping, the alleged victim was subjected to physical and psychological torture.

7. He said that the kidnapping was reported to the authorities on November 15, 1999, with which the intermittent assistance of the National Police’s Antikidnapping and Antiextortion Directorate (hereinafter “GAULA”) began; however, over the months he was kept in captivity, the authorities were unsuccessful in locating the alleged victim or his abductors. The petitioner stated that following M.B.’s release, the threats and demands for money continued, and that in response, the family requested guarantees from the Army, the Metropolitan Police and GAULA; however, those efforts were fruitless. He claimed that fearing for their lives, M.B. and two of his children left the country for the United S.s and his elder daughter relocated to Bogotá. T. crisis, he added, led to the bankruptcy of the alleged victim’s companies, the embargoing of his assets, and monetary losses.

8. He alleged the violation of the right to personal liberty through the kidnapping suffered by the alleged victim. He stated that despite being informed, by telephone, of the threatening calls, the S. took no preventive steps whatsoever to prevent Mr. B.’s abduction. He alleged the violation of the right to integrity, through the physical and psychological torture the alleged victim suffered during the kidnapping when he was held in an underground cell, and through his and his family’s suffering caused by the impunity surrounding the crime, the loss of family stability, the need to flee from Medellín, and the absence of protection and guarantees for their lives, which, in turn, led to significant material losses.

9. He alleged the violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection, in that after many years the criminal proceedings have produced no results and the perpetrators of the abduction have not been punished. He further claimed that the protective measures were not deployed in response to the extortion that followed the alleged victim’s release and that the attitude of the authorities was indifferent.

2. S.

10. Colombia claimed that it was not responsible for violating the right to personal liberty because the abduction was perpetrated by third parties. S., it stated that the alleged threat prior to the kidnapping was not reported to the authorities and that consequently, the S. was unaware of the risk of abduction and was therefore unable to deploy any kind of preventive action to avoid it. It stressed that it was only made aware of the situation on November 15, 1999. It further stated that GAULA provided advice and made itself available to the family for their negotiations with the abductors, although that offer was rejected by the family, who were opposed to any type of rescue attempt.

11. Regarding the alleged violations of the right to integrity, Colombia refuted the claims that it provided no protection to the...