Inter-American Court to try Colombia for enforced disappearance during Operation Orión

On September 20, we learned that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) presented on September 5, 2021, before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights the case of Arles Edisson Guzmán Medina, who disappeared in Medellín on November 30, 2002.

According to the Merits report, the Commission determined that this was an enforced disappearance taking into account the fact that he had been kidnapped from a restaurant by two people identified as paramilitaries., supposed to be questioned by a commander, during Operation Orión, led by the then president, lvaro Uribe Vélez.

“With regard to the element of direct intervention by state agents or their consent, there is a series of clues that prove that paramilitary groups operated with the consent of state agents, such as the link already accredited by the IACHR and the Inter-American Court between paramilitary groups and members of the public force in Colombia, the specific context of collaboration in commune 13 where the events occurred, as well as the actions of the prosecution and state agents in that case “the press release said.

The Commission took into account that the control of the area by paramilitary groups that year was possible precisely thanks to the execution of Operation Orión, which took place at the end of October 2002, a few weeks before the disappearance of the victim.

“As part of this operation, serious human rights violations were perpetrated. The national organs, as well as the judicial authorities within the framework of the jurisdiction of justice and peace, indicated that the operation was a clear example of the existing relations between the paramilitary groups and the National Army “, add the message.

Así mismo el órgano internacional asegura que con respecto de la negativa de reconocer la detención, observed that, in el contexto de consentimiento en el que se dieron los hechos no consta que el Estado haya realizado diligencia alguna para proporcionar una respuesta sobre el paradero de the victim.

Therefore, from the above, the Commission concluded that the “The State has violated the right to legal personality, life, integrity and personal liberty recognized by the American Convention, in relation to its article 1.1, as well as article 1.a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Likewise, that the State violated the right to guarantees and judicial protection with regard to articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention and article Ib) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, due to lack of due diligence in the investigation “.

The IACHR also observed that the investigation had not been opened ex officio, but only on the basis of complaints presented by the office of the mediator and by the brother of the victim. However, the authorities did not activate an immediate search since his disappearance was known on December 6, 2002, nor when the first formal investigation began. This, despite the evidence of an enforced disappearance, a situation which required a rapid and comprehensive response in the first hours after the disappearance became known.

The Commission also considered that, although the complaints presented were ultimately unified, in 2004, the suspension of these was pronounced without having investigated diligently nor devised or exhausted avenues of investigation. On the other hand, although there was knowledge of an investigation into the participation of paramilitary groups in the disappearance of other people in Comuna 13, no information indicated that the victim’s case was initially included.

Likewise, according to information provided by the State, it was known that a person had been convicted as the indirect perpetrator of the victim’s disappearance.However, there was no access to information indicating that this conviction actually contributed to the clarification of what happened, nor that other possible responsibilities, including state authorities, did. ‘under investigation.

Finally, it was concluded that the state had failed to investigate the facts within a reasonable time, as nearly 17 years have passed to date, and little action has been taken to bring all those responsible to justice and determine where. is the victim. furthermore, that the State violated the right to personal integrity of the relatives of the victim, in view of the deep feeling of pain, anguish and uncertainty that the enforced disappearance arouses in them.

On the basis of these determinations, the IACHR concluded that the State of Colombia is responsible for the violation of the rights to recognition of legal personality, to life, to personal integrity, to personal liberty, to judicial guarantees. and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 3, 7, 5, 4, 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1, as well as Articles Ia) and Ib) of the Inter-American Convention on Enforced Disappearances “, finalize the document.

KEEP READING