On January 18, 1989, 15 judiciary officials were investigating grave human rights violations in the department of Santander, including the forced disappearance of 19 merchants [1]. Suddenly, they were approached by several dozen armed men who presented themselves as members of the FARC and proceeded to disarm and hold them for the next two and a half hours. After their hands were tied behind their backs, they were put in two SUV’s and driven to a place called La Rochela. There, one after another and in a state of utter defenselessness and vulnerability, they were executed in cold blood.

 

 

Ruling on the La Rochela massacre by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights:

A Just Ruling for Justice

José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers’ Collective
Corporación Colectivo de Abogados “José Alvear Restrepo”
June 20, 2007
Editorial
Bogotá, Colombia

On January 18, 1989, 15 judiciary officials were investigating grave human rights violations in the department of Santander, including the forced disappearance of 19 merchants [1]. Suddenly, they were approached by several dozen armed men who presented themselves as members of the FARC and proceeded to disarm and hold them for the next two and a half hours. After their hands were tied behind their backs, they were put in two SUV’s and driven to a place called La Rochela. There, one after another and in a state of utter defenselessness and vulnerability, they were executed in cold blood.

Three of the officials from the judicial branch survived through sheer luck. (No State authority came to their rescue.) The murderers proceeded to leave graffiti on the vehicles to make it appear the guerrilla was responsible for the massacre. They also plundered more than a dozen files belonging to the judicial commission.

Later, it was discovered that the material authors of this atrocious crime were paramilitaries belonging to the group calling itself “Los Masetos.” This group was created under the protection of the framework legalizing the creation of self-defense groups [2] and was sponsored by large landowners, politicians, and ranchers from the area (along with having the active participation and close cooperation of the State security forces and especially the senior military commanders in the area). The material authors were led by “El Negro Vladimir”, who would later provide key testimony concerning these criminal acts.

The La Rochela massacre did not happen by mere chance, rather it was deliberately planned by drug traffickers, paramilitaries, and members of the public force to ensure impunity for other crimes that had already been committed in the region. In other words, the commission of this massacre meant to paralyze the activity of the judicial branch as far as the series of atrocious acts carried out in the region of the Magdalena Medio as well as to intimidate judiciary officials in charge of investigating similar such acts constituting grave violations to human rights.

…

More then 18 years have passed since these acts took place. Facing the prevailing and rampant impunity existing in Colombia, the victims of this massacre and their family members were left with the sole option of taking the case before international bodies. Recently, on May 11, 2007, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a ruling of major historical importance in which the Colombian State was condemned by act and omission for this reprehensible massacre.

While this case was being processed before the Court, the Colombian State admitted to its responsibility in the murder of the judiciary officials, yet also requested the Inter-American Court not to make reference in its ruling to the context in which the acts occurred. Nonetheless, the Court correctly decided that the case could not be duly handled by ignoring the examination of the legal and de facto framework surrounding, facilitating, and encouraging this massacre.

For instance, the Court determined that the Colombian State provided the legal support for the creation and promotion of armed groups through Decree 3398 of 1965, which allowed civilians -without any State control or supervision whatsoever- to be given restricted military weapons in order to carry out activities as military self-defense groups. Moreover, the Court established that army regulations and combat manuals favored the development of these groups as well as their integration with the military forces through such concepts as the use of “guides” or “informants”, joint patrols, and the provision of restricted military weapons. When the La Rochela massacre was carried out all of these norms were in force.

The IACHR ruling also recognizes that the massacre took place in a context of violence against public servants belonging to the judicial branch and were meant to obstruct their work, terrorize them, and thus maintain impunity in cases of human rights violations, which makes this crime even more grave, since it concerned an action carried out by the State to eliminate its own officials from the judicial branch while they were fulfilling their mission to administer justice.

Moreover, the ruling sustains that the Colombian system of justice was inoperative and that the case remains “substantially in impunity”, depriving the victims, their family members, and society from attaining the clarification of the acts, knowledge of what truly occurred -the right to truth- as well as the designation of the corresponding responsibilities by way of the persecution, arrest, investigation, trial and conviction of the authors -the right to justice-.

In this respect, it is revealing that judicial processes have taken more than 17 years, during which time the generalized systematic patterns of violence were not identified and followed as a part of an effective investigation; logical lines of investigation were not followed to determine the responsibility of the senior military commanders and paramilitary chiefs; military criminal justice should not have handled the case since it concerned a grave human rights violation; disciplinary and criminal justice were ineffective; there was a grave omission in the protection of public servants, witnesses and family members of the victims as well as obstruction to justice, among other major transgressions.

…

Concerning Law 975 of 2005 (also known as the Law of Justice and Peace), the Court established certain parameters meant to orient this law’s application.

For instance, the State must guarantee the victims’ effective access to the proceedings as adequately, participatory, and thoroughly as possible throughout the process, in addition to an effective system of protection for judiciary officials, witnesses, victims, and their family members. The Court also established that the State must guarantee the search for the historical truth of what truly occurred. Lastly, the State must also guarantee contradiction and effective resources; a thorough, impartial and effective investigation; a trial within a reasonable amount of time; and a punishment or sanction proportional to the affected legal asset and effectively fulfilled.

Additionally, the investigation should clarify the complex criminal structures and connections making possible the human rights violations as well as establish generalized systematic patterns in which the crimes were carried out. Lastly, the Court warns that laws obstructing the investigation and respective punishment -as well as ignoring due process- are inadmissible, since these would give rise to re-opening investigations, even if persons have already been acquitted.

Insofar as the crime of “conspiracy to commit a crime”, the Court sustains that a statute of limitations does not apply since these crimes concern grave human rights violations. This assertion is very important, since conspiracy to commit a crime should be considered inalienable and inviolably linked to these kinds of crimes, when it implies supporting and encouraging paramilitary groups that commit and have committed crimes against humanity as their core activity.

Further, we have been sustaining that the visible heads of the different economic groups, national and transnational enterprises, political parties, State civil and military servants, and all organizations that have been implicated in this criminal strategy must answer for crimes against humanity, rather than the terse “conspiracy to commit a crime.” In this regard, the Court’s ruling is very timely since it declares the imprescriptibility of conspiracy to commit a crime when concerning grave human rights violations. Among other things, it should be remembered that after the massacre of La Rochela paramilitarism finally joined the list of crimes envisaged in the criminal code. Nonetheless, as a part of the reforms in the year 2000, the crime of paramilitarism magically disappeared and ceased to be included in Colombian criminal code. Its legal identification was removed and it simply became an aggravating factor to conspiracy to commit a crime (with precise care being taken to omit the word “paramilitarism”)

As far as the right to reparation of victims of human rights violations, we also emphasize the Court reasserts that the State has the direct and principal obligation of making reparations to the victims. This acquires particular importance, given that the legal framework encompassing the so-called Law of Justice and Peace ignores the principle of reparation. As a result, the State should not avoid or privatize its responsibility concerning this matter. In this respect, why will the assets expropriated by the justice system from the drug-trafficking paramilitary chiefs swell the coffers of the National Anti-Narcotics Office instead of being designated to the Reparation Fund envisaged in the Law of Justice and Peace? Is that not what perhaps is due for justice?

To finish, we congratulate the exigency made the Court’s ruling as far as demanding the State fulfill its obligation to investigate and punish the responsible parties for planning and executing the massacre of judiciary officials, who were only attempting to deny impunity in a series of crimes already committed. Consequently, the State has the unavoidable obligation of immediately prosecuting the principal responsible parties, including those that took advantage of their position as authorities in order to offend the dignity of justice and society. We do not have start all over; it is already known who the responsible parties are. Nonetheless, these “untouchables” continue to enjoy the privileges granted by impunity. Until when?

It is time for justice. Justice is due!

[1] For more information on this case, please consult: I/A Court H.R. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109. (Opinion Judge Medina-Quiroga.) <www.cidh.orghttp://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_109_ing.pdf>
[2] Articles 25 and 33 of Legislative Decree 3398 of 1965 (adopted as permanent legislation through Law 48 of 1968); Military regulations “Combat Manual against Bandits and Guerrillas” from June 25, 1982; and “Counter-Guerrilla Combat Regulations” from April 9, 1969 (approved by the Military Forces General Command).