REPORT No. 25/15 CASE 10.737 MERITS VÍCTOR MANUEL ISAZA URIBE and FAMILY COLOMBIA
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
4 OEA/Ser.L/V/II.155 REPORT No. 25/1 5 Doc. XX XX April 2015 CASE 10.737 Original: English REPORT ON THE MERITS VÍCTOR MANUEL ISAZA URIBE AND FAMILY COLOMBIA Approved by the Commission at its meeting No. XX held on July XX, 2015, during its 155th regular session Cite as: IACHR, Report No. [number/year], Case 10.737, Merits, Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe and Family Colombia. [Date of approval]. www.cidh.org REPORT No. 25/15 CASE 10.737 MERITS VÍCTOR MANUEL ISAZA URIBE AND FAMILY COLOMBIA INDEX I. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 II. PROCESSING BY THE IACHR .................................................................................................................................................... 2 III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................................................................................... 3 A. The petitioners .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 B. The State .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 IV. PROVEN FACTS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7 A. Detention and disappearance of Victor Manuel Isaza Uribe .................................................................... 8 B. Domestic proceedings relating to the disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe ................... 12 1. Criminal investigation ............................................................................................................................12 2. Disciplinary proceedings ......................................................................................................................12 3. Actions under Administrative law ....................................................................................................13 4. Report of the National Center for Historical Memory. ............................................................. 14 C. Relevant contextual data ........................................................................................................................................14 1. Regarding the paramilitary phenomenon in Colombia ........................................................... 15 2. The context surrounding aggression against trade unionists .............................................. 18 3. The Unión Patriótica party and the risks run by persons associated with it................. 21 V. LEGAL ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................................................................................23 A. Rights to juridical personality, personal liberty, humane treatment, and life (Articles 3, 7, 5, and 4 of the American Convention); and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons [Article I (a)]..........................................................................................................23 1. Considerations on the State's obligations as guarantor with respect to persons deprived of their liberty ........................................................................................................................24 2. Analysis of whether what happened to Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe constitutes forced disappearance ............................................................................................................................................26 B. Right to freedom of association (Article 16 of the American Convention) ...................................... 30 C. Rights to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8(1), 25 of the American Convention) . 31 D. Right to humane treatment of the families of victims (Article 5(1) of the American Convention) ..................................................................................................................................................................35 VI. CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................................................................35 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................36 1 REPORT No. 25/15 CASE 10.737 MERITS VÍCTOR MANUEL ISAZA URIBE AND FAMILY COLOMBIA July, 21, 2015 I. SUMMARY 1. In December 1990, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) received a complaint submitted by the Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos (ASFADDES) and the Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging violation by the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the State,” “the Colombian State,” or “Colombia”) of the rights to recognition of juridical personality, life, humane treatment, personal liberty, right to a fair trial, freedom of thought and expression, rights of the family and judicial protection, as established in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 17, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or “American Convention”) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that convention. The petitioners alleged the forced disappearance of Mr. Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe since November 19, 1987, following his abduction by unknown persons with the acquiescence of State agents from the La Sierra prison in the municipality of Puerto Nare, Department of Antioquia. 2. For its part, the State alleged that the facts relating to the alleged violation of the human rights of Mr. Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe could not be attributed to it because, although he had been in prison under State custody, it had not been established that State agents participated in any way in his disappearance. Accordingly, the State argued that one hypothesis pursued in the domestic investigation was that of an escape from prison facilitated by third parties. The State further asserted that it had complied with its duty to investigate ex officio what had happened to the alleged victim and had done so in a serious, impartial, and effective manner. It added that the absence of outcomes was due to the complexity of the case. 3. After reviewing the positions of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the State of Colombia is responsible for violating the right to juridical personality, to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, to a fair trial, to freedom of association, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, and 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe. The Commission also concluded that the State violated the rights to humane treatment, fair trial and judicial protection established in Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of his relatives. Finally, the Commission concluded that the Colombian State is responsible for violating the obligations established in Articles 1 (a) and 1(b) of the Inter- American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. II. PROCESSING BY THE IACHR 4. The initial petition was received in December 1990. The processing of the petition from the time it was lodged to the decision on admissibility is described in detail in Admissibility Report No. 102/11,1 issued on July 22, 2011. 5. In that report, the Commission declared itself competent to hear the petition and stated that the facts denounced therein could constitute violations of the rights established in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, and 1 IACHR, Report No. 102/11 (admissibility), Petition 10.737, Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe (Colombia), July 22, 2011, paragraphs 4, 5, and 6. 2 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument and in light of Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 6. On July 26, 2011, the Commission notified the parties of its admissibility report and, pursuant to Article 37.1 of the Rules of Procedures then in force, gave the petitioners three months in which to submit their additional observations on the merits. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 48.1.f) of the American Convention, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the Parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter. 7. On October 26, 2011, the petitioners expressed interest in initiating a friendly settlement procedure and put forward a proposal. Given that the State did not respond to that proposal, the Commission, at the request of the petitioners ruled out that possibility in a communication dated October 5, 2012. 8. On November 8, 2012, the petitioners submitted their observations on the merits, which were forwarded to the State on December 21, 2012. In a communication dated April 22, 2013, the State presented its arguments on the merits. The petitioners sent in their observations regarding those arguments on December