OEA/Ser.L/V/II REPORT No. 361 /20 Doc. 379 12 December 2020 PETITION 24-11 Original: Spanish REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY FAMILIIES OF THE VICTIMS OF COLLECTIVE DISPLACEMENT FROM THE SANTA CECILIA TOWNSHIP AND NEARBY VILLAGES IN JANUARY 2000 COLOMBIA Approved electronically by the Commission on December 12, 2020. Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 361/20 , Petition 24-11. Admissibility. Families of the victims of collective displacement from the Santa Cecilia Township and nearby villages in January 2000. Colombia. December 12, 2020. www.iachr.org I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION Petitioner: Patricia Elena Fernandez Acosta Families of the victims of the massacre and and victims of the Alleged victim: latter forced displacement from the township of Santa Cecilia and nearby villages in January 20001 Respondent State: Colombia Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 6 (freedom from slavery), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (fair trial), 11 (right to privacy), 15 (assembly), 16 (freedom of association), 17 (rights of the family), 19 (rights of the child), 21 (private property), 22 (freedom of movement and residence), 23 (right to participate in Rights invoked: government), 24 (equality before the law) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights 2 in relation to its article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (obligation to abide by domestic legal effects) and article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women3 II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR4 Filing of the petition: January 6, 2011 Notification of the petition to the June 9, 2017 State: State’s first response: April 30, 2018 Additional observations from the November 27, 2018 petitioner: III. COMPETENCE Competence Ratione personae: Yes Competence Ratione loci: Yes Competence Ratione temporis: Yes Yes, American Convention (deposit of the instrument of Competence Ratione materiae: ratification made on July 31, 1973) and Belém do Para Convention (instrument adopted on November 15, 1996) IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION Duplication of procedures and No International res judicata: 1 The petition refers to 203 alleged victims and their families who shall be duly identified at the merits stage. 2 Hereinafter “the American Convention”. 3 hereinafter “the Convention of Belém do Pará” 4 The observations submitted by each party were duly transmitted to the opposing party. 1 Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 6 (freedom from slavery), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (fair trial), 11 (right to privacy), 15 (assembly), 19 (rights of the child), 21 (private property), 22 (freedom of movement and residence), 25 (judicial protection) Rights declared admissible and 26 (progressive development) of the American Convention, in relation to its articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (obligation to abide by domestic legal effects) and article 7 of the Belém do Para Convention Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the Yes, in the terms of section VI rule: Timeliness of the petition: Yes, in the terms of section VI V. FACTS ALLEGED 1. The Petitioner affirms that the Colombian State is responsible for the violation of human rights of the alleged victims in virtue of the collective killing (massacre) perpetrated by the paramilitary group United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (hereinafter “the AUC”) in the township of Santa Cecilia and nearby villages in January 2000 and for the further forced displacement of its survivors as a result from the attack. They hold that the zone had presence of public force, which is why they denounce the State for its acquiescent, permissive and supportive acts toward the paramilitary action, since it had not taken the measures necessary to prevent the massacre, tortures, arbitrary retentions and outrages suffered by such population, which included boys and girls. She claims that the alleged victims were subject to temporary slavery and retention since the paramilitaries forced them to produce food, and to witness their celebrations. Likewise, holds that the paramilitaries broke abusively into their homes and private life having their households and means of commute being destroyed and their beef cattle being stolen. 2. It is affirmed that, in the early morning of January 28, 2000, approximately 80 members of the paramilitary groups of Córdona and Urabe led by Carlos Castaño and Salvatore Mancuso took over and submitted the inhabitants of the township of Santa Cecilia and nearby villages carrying short- and long-range firearms, and dressed with uniforms exclusive of the Colombian military forces. She holds that this paramilitary group used land roads and trucks to enter and mobilize throughout the region during the previous and latter days of the fact passing by police stations and Colombian army control posts. In this context, claims that the State had both knowledge of the facts and the capability to prevent them, since the township of Santa Cecilia is located in the center of the department of el Cesar, and its only routes of access are by highway entering by the township of Arjona and by Cesar river, passing by police stations. Also, affirms that the dwellers of the zone made telephone calls prior to the facts requesting help from the Popa battalion in Valledupar, where they answered the first call, yet not the successive ones that were made asking for aid. Petitioner affirms that the trucks passed by police stations with no one checking on them. She holds that there was never a thorough investigation as to the origin of the trucks that transported the members of the AUC. Additionally, informs that the State knew of the situation of special vulnerability of the inhabitants of the zone and surroundings since denunciations had been formulated years before5. They add that in spite of the claims reported and the fact that they were made prior to the attack, there was no action to prevent the facts. 3. The Petitioner holds that the day of the massacre, the paramilitary group commenced simultaneous actions of terror and barbarity that concluded with the extrajudicial execution of 12 persons, among men, women and a teenager. The homicides were barbarically performed before the sight of the dwellers, including children. Petitioner narrates that the alleged victims were tied; some taken out of their 5 The Petitioner claims that the Coronado family filed claims for threats from the AUC received against them in 1997 and 1998. She holds that on September 8, 1997 Mr. Eulises Coronado Vidales reported before the Central Inspection of Police of the Astrea-Cesar Municipality, the threats he had been subjected to from the paramilitaries. On April 6, 1998, five members of the Coronado family reported before the Operative Unit of the CTI of the General Prosecutor of the Nation in Astrea-Cesar, the threats from the paramilitary group against them. On January 17, 2000, members of the AUC attacked the Astrea municipality and killed four people; such municipality is located approximately 5 minutes for the township of Santa Clara. 2 homes half-naked and using a dog to attack some of them; next they were shot with a rifle. Likewise, claims that the paramilitary group kept the inhabitants of Santa Cecilia fenced, keeping them from running away. They were all abducted and many of them were taken to a small soccer field, where the AUC murdered a large number of victims. Meanwhile, another member of the paramilitary group entered into the households of the villagers forcing the residents to make food for them; they consumed all they had, while the outrages, tortures and other murders continued. Also, claims that the paramilitaries consumed domestic animals, looted the stores and stole a quantity of beef cattle. Exemplifying the situation of terror to which the villagers were subject, the Petitioner describes that Mr. Humberto Marin Polo, who was 60 years old, was murdered after having witnessed the humiliations against his daughter Luz Aida Marin Pertuz and that upon asking that he be killed in exchange; he was attacked by a dog which tore off part of his face and after this attack his daughter was murdered and then him. She also indicates that the girl O.O.M, who was 15 years old, was raped by the paramilitaries. 4. The Petitioner claims that, as a result from the aforesaid facts, the survivors of the massacre were forced to relocate internally on account of fear of future of additional acts of violence. This also in light of what happened to the soldier Javier Enrique Estrada Navarro, official of Astrea-Cesar, who on February 1, 2000 on a television program, denounced the facts of the massacre of Santa Cecilia and asked for the State’s help to assist the displaced population, being murdered by the AUC6 a few days later. Informs that, upon such situation of extreme vulnerability, nearly 300 persons during the following days moved to the municipalities of Astrea and Chimichagua in search of protection and support. She affirms that due to the lack of support from the State, the alleged victims scattered toward different cities such as Valledupar, Barranquilla and Bogotá. In this context affirms that the State violated the right to a dignifying life, humane tratment, free movement and residence, private property, rights of the family and rights of the child, since due to the massacre the survivors had to move from their place of residence to be protected, depriving them from having continuity on their life projects, disregarding the children’s welfare; plus, the displacement caused them psychological torture and brought forth such panic that it forced the alleged victims to abandon their homes; and generated the loss of all of their belongings. In addition, the Petitioner claims that the State violated women’s rights, since the girl O.O.M was sexually assaulted.