Pedro Movilla case hearing before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
#PedroJulioMovillaAttheIACHRCourt
Last February 15 were held, in Costa Rica, the public hearings convened by The Inter-American Court of Human Rights – IACHR Court – on the case Pedro Julio Movilla vs. Colombia, 29 years after the forced disappearance of the political and social leader, and after the State failed to comply with the recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission on Human rights – IACHR -, in its report on the case in 2019, for which it submitted the case to the Court.
The Colombian State is being tried in this international court for violating the rights to life, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, judicial protection, and recognition of the legal personality of the social and political leader, whose whereabouts have been unknown since May 13, 1993, when has started a long search for his family. In its report, the Inter-American Commission determined that there is multiple evidence to establish the international responsibility of Colombia, as a consequence of a practice of forced disappearances, stimulated by the notion of Internal Enemy, against persons belonging to alternative sectors of society who were understood as an enemy to be fought.
Candelaria Vergara, wife of the victim, gave her courageous testimony, in which she recounted the events from the day and time of Pedro Movilla’s disappearance – when she was taking her daughter to the John F. Kennedy school in Southwest Bogotá – to the hard work of her and her children to find Pedro Movilla in order to obtain justice and learn the truth about what happened to her husband, a task that has lasted 29 years. She also expressed the need for the Court to order the Colombian State to declassify military intelligence files that contain information on Pedro and tens of thousands of other disappeared persons in Colombia (1).
Relive the full hearing here
First part:
Second part:
As a measure of integral reparation, Candelaria demanded: “That they continue searching for Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio and all the disappeared in Colombia, that the State does it, not only on paper, but in practice, that is one of the mechanisms of reparation” she assured.
Both the IACHR Report and the lawsuit filed by the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers’ Collective -Cajar, on behalf of the victims, as well as Candelaria’s testimony, made it possible to establish that the Colombian authorities have not been diligent in the investigation and search, in addition to the re-victimization of her family, since the lack of willingness to clarify the facts has affected them, as established by the expert report of psychologist Carolina Torres de Copsico, which showed a deterioration in the physical and mental health of the victims. In addition, it became evident how tortuous is the role of women searchers, such as Candelaria, who have undertaken a work in search of the truth, which is added to the care work commonly attributed by gender roles to women and those related to the support of her home, after her husband did not return.
Both the IACHR Report and the lawsuit filed by the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers’ Collective – Cajar -, on behalf of the victims, as well as Candelaria’s testimony, made it possible to establish that the Colombian authorities have not been diligent in the investigation and search, in addition to the re-victimization of her family, since the lack of willingness to clarify the facts has affected them, as established by the expert report of psychologist Carolina Torres de Copsico, which showed a deterioration in the physical and mental health of the victims. In addition, it became evident how tortuous is the role of women searchers, such as Candelaria, who have undertaken a work in search of the truth, which is added to the care work commonly attributed by gender roles to women and those related to the support of her home, after her husband did not return.
It is also established that there are annotations from the 13th Brigade of the Colombian National Army on Pedro Movilla with data such as his profile, location and movements, family ties and activities of the leader in different cities, which would have been used to classify him as part of the armed insurgency of the extinct guerrilla of the Popular Liberation Army – EPL -.
The hearing also heard the expert testimony of Alberto Yepes Palacio, offered by the IACHR, who referred to the practice of human rights violations in Colombia, particularly forced disappearance in the 1990s, as a result of the labeling of certain sectors of the population such as political and union social activists as “internal enemy”.
State intervention
The representatives of the Colombian State, in their statement before the Inter-American Court, expressed their understanding of the clamor of the family members and acknowledged the failures of justice in clarifying the facts, as well as the judicial inactivity and lack of diligence during some stages and the delay in the case. They also asked for forgiveness and, initially, the intention to acknowledge the family and reaffirm the State’s commitment to provide reparations to the victims.
However, following this, the agent of the State added that: “We will expose before the honorable Court the reasons why neither the aggregate context, nor the information received by the Commission and the representatives of the contrary case, demonstrate that it is an enforced disappearance in the terms established by the Inter-American Human Rights System” In addition to the above and in the statement of reasons, she established that the Colombian context of the time seems to be the only element to prove the responsibility of agents of the State, given the lack of evidence.
This ambiguous response is revictimizing and a step backwards in the process of restoring the rights of the victims, while reaffirming the responsibility of the State in the tragedy experienced by Candelaria and her family since Pedro’s disappearance.
The Commission declaration
In fact, in its final intervention, the Inter-American Commission, in accordance with the testimony of Candelaria Vergara and the arguments of the Cajar, reaffirmed the concurrence in the instant case of the characteristics of an enforced disappearance, i.e., the detention by State agents and the attempt to conceal the whereabouts of the person, and emphasized that his report proves the presence of police officers near Pedro’s location, days before the facts and the constant persecution to which the political and social leader was subjected as a member of the PCC-ML political party. In addition, he included the testimonies of people who said they had seen police officers frequenting the place and later saw them together with a man very similar to the photo of Pedro Movilla.
At the close of the hearing, the Inter-American Court established a non-extendable deadline of March 17, 2022 for the parties to submit their final written arguments.
Candelaria Vergara’s shocking testimony at this hearing outlined the path of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition that she demands as a victim: “Why did they take such a wonderful person away from me? Tell me the truth, who gave the order to disappear Pedro? Who gave the order for disappearances in Colombia?”
———–
Note: 1. According to the Observatory of Memory and Conflict of the CNMH as of August 2018, 80,000 victims of enforced disappearance had been reported: https://bit.ly/3rYBVxC According to data cited by the Attorney General’s Office during the hearing, based on the Information System Network of Missing Persons and Corpses -Sirdec-, the figure is around 114,000 people.
