Originally published in Confidencial Colombia
President Iván Duque had resisted the visit of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, IACHR, requested in light of the massive protests in the country, from the beginning, taking a month to approve its arrival in the country. Its position of rejection returned with force this week when at a press conference, the IACHR presented its report of observations and recommendations of the working visit to Colombia from June 8 to 10, 2021. Despite the very constructive attitude of the IACHR, the government behaved as if Colombia were any authoritarian country, hiding behind the facade of sovereignty and indignation. The report presented on July 7 belies the government’s international position, which states that in Colombia there is a democracy that guarantees the fundamental right to protest and that the human rights violations during the strike are isolated cases or “bad apples” in the National Police. On the contrary, the report evidences a “systematization” of police repression of legitimate protests that do not require explicit or written orders from the authorities. Among the 41 recommendations made by the IACHR, the first is to separate the National Police and the ESMAD from the Ministry of Defense “in order to guarantee a structure that consolidates and preserves security with a focus on citizenship and human rights”, because they persist in the logic of armed conflict “in the interpretation and response to the current social mobilization”. Ignoring this, President Iván Duque reiterated on July 8 that the Police will remain in the portfolio of the Ministry of Defense, as this has been done “successfully” for several decades. Mr. Duque, what is essential is not tradition, but that the police comply with human rights standards.
Second, the IACHR announced a monitoring mechanism for human rights in Colombia “that will contribute to the consolidation of peace in various sectors of society”. Vice President Marta Lucia Ramirez said that “Colombia has internal mechanisms to address complaints filed for alleged cases of human rights violations”. This argument is misleading, as the follow-up mechanism does not replace national institutions, but will follow up and support their work.
Third, the IACHR insisted that the right to peaceful protest must be guaranteed and that the use of police and military force in the control of disorder must be restricted as much as possible. It noted that the State’s response to the protests “was characterized by the excessive and disproportionate use of violence and disproportionate force, in many cases including lethal force.” It is true that the government has condemned the violence, but what has been said is not convincing because the results of investigations for police abuses against protesters in 2019 and 2020 are very poor. The government also argues that the Police “do not use lethal firearms in the framework of demonstrations” since the legislation prohibits firearms in protests. However, many police officers are known to have violated the rule by killing at least 18 people during the strike.
Fourth, the IACHR urges the repeal of “the use of the figure of transfer for protection and complaints of arbitrary detentions”. The government refused to make reforms to this figure arguing that what corresponds is “to do justice for specific cases”. This is an outburst because the norm as it stands lends itself to abuses in protests. What corresponds to the State is to do justice and repeal the law.
Fifth, the IACHR recommends that the government refrain from prohibiting in a generalized manner and a priori roadblocks or roadblocks that occur in different ways as forms of protests. The president said that “no one can recommend a country to be tolerant with acts of criminality”. Alvaro Uribe had rejected the same request from the IACHR and asked to “create collective awareness about the damage of the blockades to the economy, employment and the social fabric of the Nation”. This is misleading because none of the recommendations are about being permissive of crime. It is about protecting people by insisting on the use of human rights criteria when protest is limited, but not about leaving crimes against individuals uninvestigated.
Sixth, the IACHR is concerned about armed civilians shooting at demonstrators “apparently with the acquiescence of members of the Police”. There is a perceived risk of the return of paramilitarism to repress protest with the acquiescence and tolerance of the police. On this point there was no governmental reaction. He who is silent gives.
Seventh, the IACHR commented on the possible lack of separation of public powers, especially in the Attorney General’s Office, due to the preliminary investigations opened against opposition officials and congressmen in the context of the protests. The government complained that the report mentions issues that do not correspond to the purpose of the visit, such as compliance with the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of “Gustavo Petro vs Colombia” and the questioning of the independence of public authorities and control entities. Mr. Duque, these issues do have to do with the purpose of the visit, since the intention of Attorney General Cabello in initiating preliminary investigations to opposition senators for mediating between the police and demonstrators during the protest, was that they declare themselves impeded in the discussion of the “reform” project of the Attorney General’s Office, as happened with Senator Alexander Lopez.
Eighth, the IACHR noted the inconsistency between official data and those compiled by civil society. It criticized the disparity of figures between state agencies and those reported by civil organizations, especially in the numbers of missing and deceased persons in the context of the protests, and recommended a single state registry. The truth is that civil society figures are more transparent than those handled by the Attorney General’s Office.
Chancellor Ramirez maintained that the recommendations of the IACHR are not binding for the State and that it will not comply with some of them. This position is not acceptable. Colombia is part of the Inter-American Human Rights System and has signed international treaties that oblige the State to comply in good faith, according to the Vienna Convention on the object and purpose of treaties. The practical and immediate consequence of the contempt will be a more detailed monitoring and follow-up by the IACHR of the situation in the country. Hence the importance of the new follow-up mechanism.
The IACHR’s observations should not be read as support for the criminals or as a biased judgment of the government. Rather, the language and rigorousness used invites work on the recovery of confidence in the institutions. It is a pity that the government receives the recommendations with hostility when they are intended to support Colombia in its compliance with minimum human rights standards.
The reaction of the government and others, particularly the Democratic Center, only reinforces one of the most reiterated observations of the IACHR that in Colombia “polarization, stigmatization, violence and the persistence of bellicose logic hinder all efforts at dialogue as a mechanism for reaching solutions to social conflict”.
The government asks non-governmental human rights organizations, NGOs, to keep in mind “responsibility in the midst of instability”. But the role of NGOs is to document and denounce abuses by state agents. By blaming them for the current situation, Duque intends to create a “smokescreen”. The reality is that the government’s rejection of the constructive recommendations of the IACHR is what will prolong the violence and discontent, becoming another factor of instability in the country.
