Colombia: The file’s getting thicker

THE name of this relatively small Latin American country has been popping up a disproportionately large number of times in the reports of different special rapporteurs. And consider the wide range of reasons for which Colombia has been recurring in those reports: disappearances, extra-judicial killings, torture, subversion of the independence of the judiciary, attacks of human rights defenders and the plight of the internally displaced.

All this despite the existence of an office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Bogota since November 1996 under an agreement between the Colombian Government and Mr Ayala Lasso.

In the special debate on Colombia on 4 April 2003 under Item 3 of the CHR's Agenda, many human rights organisations and state delegations expressed disappointment over the deterioration of the situation since the 58th session.

For all the work done by the High Commissioner's office in Colombia, the speakers complained that there has been little follow-up to the numerous recommendations made by the CHR, the thematic mechanisms and the Inter-American system. It is obvious that the Government is lacking in political will.

Besides the crimes committed by the Army and the guerrillas, the operations of the para-military groups constitute again the main source of human rights violations. Not surprisingly, in its chairman's speech, the CHR deplored the numerous attacks against human rights defenders, trade union leaders and teachers, and strongly condemned all assassinations, violations of the freedom of opinion and expression and of political rights. It condemned the persistence of impunity in the country and expressed deep concern at the violations of the right to fair trial, the abuse of pre-trial detention and the corruption in the penitentiary system. The Commission also urged the Government to maintain a dialogue with NGOs and to adopt efficient measures guaranteeing the life and personal safety of their members.

In recent years, the Commission addressed the internal armed conflict in Colombia. The 2002 statement acknowledged President Pastrana's compulsion in putting an end to the process of dialogue and negotiation as the guerrilla organisations, FARC and EP, had demonstrated their unwillingness to make serious progress in fulfilling their commitments. But the Commission stressed that it believed ''that a negotiated political solution is necessary in order to end the conflict.''

Decree 128

One of the best illustrations of the problem is given by the recent adoption of a decree for amnesty and legalisation of the paramilitaries.  The Colombian Government has taken steps towards a possible peace process with the paramilitary groups, which shall be based on impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In an interview published in El Tiempo on 12 January 2003, the Minister of Interior bluntly explained:  "the Government is prepared to leave the past behind. There are various judicial limits, which will be studied, and we will have to overcome them using much imagination".

This is blatantly inconsistent with the rule of law. Despite many protests in the country, the Government issued on 22 January Decree 128 (2003). The Decree provides that demobilised members of armed groups "will be entitled to an amnesty" as long as a governmental body called the Operating Committee for Giving Up Arms (CODA) certifies that the person concerned belonged to an illegal organisation and willingly deserted. Composed of six States officials, CODA is chaired by a representative from the Minister of Interior and Justice.

The Decree indeed contains a section that guarantees the right to justice, but, as the Colombian Commission of Jurists explains in reality this "does not constitute an effective safeguard. Article 21 authorises the prosecutor or judge to limit or impede the exoneration of the person if that person has previously been either processed or sentenced for crimes which cannot be subject to a pardon or amnesty according to the Law, the Constitution or the international treaties ratified", but,  the Commission adds, "given the existing impunity in the country, those sentenced or processed for such crimes can be counted on the fingers of one hand".

The Colombian Commission of Jurists also pointed out that the Colombian Government had decided to advance confidential discussions with the paramilitary groups, which facilitated negotiations behind closed doors. In a statement to the 59th. session of the Commission, the Colombian group of jurists concluded : "a pardon issued in a clandestine manner and without judicial control, which is what Decree 128 authorises, creates further real dangers in what is already a deteriorating human rights crisis in Colombia. The international community and the Colombian people should do what is necessary to prevent this policy of impunity being implemented and ensure that a genuine reconciliation process occurs which is based on truth, justice and reparation".

Many NGOs in Colombia would like to obtain a Special Rapporteur of the Commission. This strong request is no doubt genuine and illustrates the seriousness of the situation. But one should be realistic at the same time and appreciate that all indications are that the Commission, with its current composition, will never endorse such a proposal. Anyhow, a Special Rapporteur on Colombia would probably visit the country once a year, whilst the UN office has a permanent presence and programme. (Work of the OCHCR: See box)                               

-         ACZ