Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia Judgment of January 31, 2006
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia Judgment of January 31, 2006 (Merits, Reparations and Costs) In the Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre , the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges: Sergio García Ramírez, President Alirio Abreu Burelli, Vice President Oliver Jackman, Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, Judge Cecilia Medina Quiroga, Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge Diego García-Sayán, Judge, and Juan Carlos Esguerra Portocarrero, Judge ad hoc, also present, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary; pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and with Articles 29, 31, 56 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers the following judgment. I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE 1. On March 23, 2004, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 50 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed before the Court an application against the State of Colombia (hereinafter “the State” or “Colombia”), originating from petitions Nos. 10,566 and 11,748, received by the Secretariat of the Commission on February 12, 1990, and May 5, 1997, respectively. 2. The Commission lodged the application for the Court to decide whether the State had violated the rights embodied in Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) and 19 (Rights of the Child) in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the purported victims of the alleged massacre perpetrated in the village of Pueblo Bello, described in the application. The Commission also asked the Court to decide whether the State had violated Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, -2- in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims of the alleged massacre and their next of kin. In its application, the Commission alleged that “[t]he forced disappearance of 37 [persons,] as well as the extrajudicial execution of six peasants from the village of Pueblo Bello in January 1990 is considered to be an [...] act of private justice by paramilitary groups led at the time by Fidel Castaño in the Department of Córdoba, perpetrated with the acquiescence of State agents. Owing to its magnitude and to the [alleged] fear that it sowed among the civilian population, the episode strengthened the paramilitary control of this region of the country and illustrated the consequences of the [alleged] omissions, acts of acquiescence and collaboration of State agents with paramilitary groups in Colombia, as well as their impunity. Almost 15 years have elapsed since the disappearance of the victims and, owing to the action of many civilian and State actors, the domestic courts have clarified the fate of six of the 43 disappeared persons, while only 10 of the approximately 60 individuals involved have been tried and sentenced – and only three of them have been deprived of their liberty; consequently, the State has still not complied fully with its obligation to clarify the facts, prosecute all those responsible effectively and recover the bodies of the rest of the [alleged] victims.” 3. The Commission also requested the Inter-American Court, in accordance with Article 63(1) of the Convention, to order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation indicated in the application. Lastly, it requested the Court to order the State to reimburse the costs and expenses arising from processing the case in the domestic jurisdiction and before the organs of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights. II JURISDICTION 4. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On February 12, 1990, the Inter-American Commission received a “communication […] concerning the situation of 33 peasants” of Pueblo Bello from Christa Schneider. On the same date, under case No. 10,566, the Commission communicated with the State in order to request information in this regard. 6. On May 10, 1990, the State submitted its reply, which was forwarded to the complainant on June 26, 1990, and she was granted a specific time to present comments. 7. On December 6, 1990, the Commission received information about the matter from another source, and it was sent to the State so that the latter could forward its observations. On August 16, 1991, the State remitted its reply, which the Commission forwarded to the complainant on September 18 that year, so that she could submit her comments. -3- 8. On June 9, 1993, and on January 18, 1994, the Commission tried, unsuccessfully, to communicate in writing with the complainant and told her that “if it did not receive the required information [...], the Commission could suspend consideration of the case.” 9. On May 5, 1997, the Comisión Colombiana de Juristas [Colombian Jurists Commission] and the Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos [Association of Next of Kin of the Detained/Disappeared] (hereinafter “the petitioners”) presented a petition before the Inter-American Commission concerning the same facts, and a new proceeding was started as case No. 11,748. 10. On May 20, 1997, the State communicated with the Commission to inform it that case No. 11,748 “had already been reported and [was] being processed before [this] instance as case No. 10,566”; it therefore requested the Commission to adopt “pertinent measures in order to combine and process the case under one case file.” 11. On May 28, 1997, the Commission informed both parties that the material facts in case files Nos. 10,566 and 11,748 would be joindered and processed under case file No. 11,748. 12. On March 3, 1998, the Commission made itself available to the parties to try and reach a friendly settlement. 13. On October 9, 2002, during its 116th regular session, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 41/02, in which it declared the case admissible. On October 29, 2002, the Commission made itself available to the parties to help them seek a friendly settlement. 14. On October 8, 2003, during its 118th regular session, the Commission adopted Report No. 44/03, in which it recommended that the State should: 1. Conduct a complete, effective and impartial investigation in the ordinary jurisdiction, in order to prosecute and punish all those responsible for the forced disappearance and extrajudicial execution of the Pueblo Bello victims. 2. Adopt the necessary measures to find and identify the remains of the victims whose whereabouts have not yet been established and return these to the next of kin. 3. Make reparation to the next of kin of the victims for the pecuniary and non- pecuniary damage suffered owing to the violations of the American Convention established herein. 4. Adopt the necessary measures to combat and dismantle the paramilitary groups in accordance with the recommendations adopted by ICHR in its general reports, and by the international community. 5. Adopt the necessary measures to avoid the recurrence of similar events in future, in accordance with the obligation to protect and guarantee the fundamental rights embodied in the American Convention, and also the necessary measures to comply fully with the rules of law developed by the Colombian Constitutional Court and by this Commission in the investigation and prosecution of similar cases by the ordinary criminal justice system. 15. On December 23, 2003, the Commission forwarded Report on Merits No. 44/03 to the State, granting it two months from the date of transmittal to provide -4- information on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations contained in the report. 16. On January 23, 2004, the Commission informed the petitioners that the report had been adopted and asked them to advise their position as regards submitting the case to the Inter-American Court. 17. On March 4, 2004, the petitioners presented a brief in which they requested the Commission to submit the case to the Court if the State failed to comply with the recommendations in its report. 18. On March 12, 2004, the State requested an extension of 10 days to present its comments on the Merits Report. The same day, the Commission informed the State that it would grant a five-day extension for the presentation of those comments. There is nothing in the file of the proceedings before the Commission to show that the comments were presented. 19. On March 22, 2004, the Commission decided to file this case before the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. IV PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 20. On March 23, 2004, the Commission filed the application before the Court (supra para. 1), attaching documentary evidence and offering testimonial evidence. The Commission appointed Susana Villarán de la Puente and Santiago A. Canton as delegates, and Ariel Dulitzky, Verónica Gómez, Norma Colledani and Lilly Ching as legal advisers. Subsequently, on August 15, 2005, the Commission appointed the same delegates, and Víctor Madrigal Borloz, Juan Pablo Albán, Verónica Gómez and Manuela Cuvi as legal advisers. Finally, on September 15, 2005, the Commission appointed only Susana Villarán de la Puente as delegate, and Lilly Ching as legal adviser, in addition to the legal advisers appointed on August 15, 2005.