CHAPTER IV
VIOLENCE AND VIOLATIONS OF
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN LAW
A. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Chapter, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(the "Commission," the "IACHR" or "the Inter-American
Commission") will seek to analyze the violence which occurs constantly and with
extreme intensity in Colombia, resulting in numerous massacres, internal displacement,
executions, injuries to persons, threats, deprivations of liberty and attacks on physical
objects each year. The Commission will consider both that violence which is related,
directly or indirectly, to the armed conflict as well as the violence which occurs outside
of that context. The Commission will consider, to the extent possible, all of that
violence for which international law relating to human rights protection provides guiding
norms. Thus, the Commission will discuss the acts of violence carried out by Colombian
State agents and organs and their proxies or collaborators as well as by the armed
dissident groups acting in Colombia. For the purposes of this analysis, the Commission
will apply international human rights norms, particularly the American Convention on Human
Rights (the "Convention" or the "American Convention"), and will also
refer to international humanitarian law, where relevant.
B. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS
1. Role and Competence of the Commission
2. Before discussing its concerns and other matters relating to the
violence and ongoing hostilities in Colombia, the Commission believes it useful to clarify
various issues concerning its competence to investigate and condemn acts of violence. In
accordance with the legal framework established by member states of the Organization of
American States (the "OAS"), the Commission is expressly charged with monitoring
and promoting respect for and defense of fundamental human rights by each of those states.( 1 ) The Commission's duty, therefore, is to apply human
rights instruments to cases and situations involving State responsibility.
3. Under the individual petition procedure set forth in its Statute and
the American Convention on Human Rights, the Commission's jurisdiction extends only to
situations where the international responsibility of a member State is at issue.( 2 ) Thus, the IACHR is authorized to receive, investigate
and decide cases lodged against member States for the acts or omissions of their agents
and organs that allegedly violate the human rights guaranteed in the American Convention
or the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (the "Declaration").
The Commission's jurisdiction also encompasses cases of transgressions of these same
rights by private persons or groups who are, in effect, State agents or when such
transgressions by private actors are acquiesced in, tolerated, or condoned by the State.
4. The Commission as well as the Court have also consistently pointed
out that the State has a duty under the American Convention and the Declaration to prevent
and to investigate acts of violence committed by private parties and to prosecute and
punish the perpetrators accordingly. The Commission thus may process individual cases
alleging the failure of a State to comply with this duty. At the same time, the Commission
recognizes that in situations of civil strife the State cannot always prevent, much less
be held responsible for, the harm to individuals and destruction of private property
occasioned by the hostile acts of its armed opponents.
5. As noted in its two previous country reports on Colombia, OAS member
States opted deliberately not to give the Commission jurisdiction to investigate or hear
individual complaints concerning illicit acts of private persons or groups for which the
State is not internationally responsible. If it were to act on such complaints, the
Commission would be in flagrant breach of its mandate, and, by according these persons or
groups the same treatment and status that a State receives as a party to a complaint, it
would infringe the sovereign rights and prerogatives of the State concerned.
6. This limitation on its competence to process individual complaints
does not mean that the Commission has been indifferent or silent in the face of atrocities
and other violent acts committed by dissident armed groups, drug traffickers and other
private actors in Colombia and other OAS member States. Outside of the context of
individual cases, the Commission has frequently referenced the atrocities committed by
armed dissident groups in its press releases, in communications with governments and in
its reports on the situation of human rights in the various member States of the OAS. In
this regard, for example, the Commission stated in its "Second Report on the
Situation of Human Rights in Colombia:"
[T]he Commission is . . . emphatic in its condemnation of the
terrible aggression perpetrated against the Colombian people by irregular armed groups.
The Commission considers the use of terrorism, whatever its form, to be utterly
reprehensible as are blackmail, extortion, kidnapping, torture and assassination.( 3 )
7. A relatively recent expression of the Commission's condemnation of
illicit acts committed by an armed dissident group in Colombia is found in the following
text of an official press release issued by the Commission on April 1, 1998:
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has learned that the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia ("Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia" - FARC), on March 23, set up a roadblock for almost eight hours on the
highway which connects Bogotá to the western plains of Colombia. During the period which
the roadblock was in place, the armed dissident group halted the movement of those who
traveled on this highway, many of whom were returning to Bogotá after an extended
weekend, and detained several persons. The FARC subsequently freed some individuals but
continued to hold others under its control. According to information received by the
Commission, the FARC have threatened to execute the persons who remain in captivity.
The Commission has indicated, on other occasions, that international
norms absolutely prohibit, in any armed conflict, executions and any other act of violence
against members of the civilian population who do not participate directly in the
hostilities. These norms also prohibit the taking of hostages and arbitrary deprivation of
liberty. The Commission reaffirms its prior statements on this occasion and energetically
repudiates any violation of these international law norms committed against any
individual.
The IACHR again emphasizes that the most diverse lines of thought
recognize essential values which require respect for human dignity, even in conflict
situations. The IACHR, with absolute independence and objectivity, has consistently and
uniformly expressed this same position in a coherent manner, in respect of the States in
this hemisphere and, in appropriate cases, in reference to the actions of non-State
groups. This has occurred, as is public knowledge, in situations which have taken place in
various member States of the Organization, including Colombia.
For these reasons, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
through this press release, exhorts the group which holds under its control several
persons kidnapped in the roadblock which the FARC put in place on March 23 to respect the
lives, security and health of those individuals and to proceed to liberate them
immediately.( 4 )
8. The Commission has been equally clear that when organized private
groups take up arms to overthrow an elected government, the State has a right under
domestic and international law to use legal and appropriate military force to put down
such insurrection in order to defend its citizenry and the constitutional order. However,
during such situations of internal hostilities, the Commission has received from Colombia
and other OAS member States numerous complaints alleging serious violations of the
fundamental rights guaranteed in the American Convention and Declaration arising out of
the conduct of military operations by State security forces and its other agents. In order
to properly judge the specific claims raised in such petitions, the Commission has found
it necessary at times either to directly apply rules of international humanitarian law,
i.e. the law of armed conflict, or to inform its interpretations of relevant provisions of
the American Convention by reference to these rules.
9. As the Commission noted in recent decisions against Colombia and
other States,( 5 ) the American Convention continues to
apply during situations of internal armed conflict. Indeed, even when Article 27 of the
Convention is invoked, permitting States to temporarily suspend the free exercise of
certain rights during genuine emergency situations, including internal hostilities, that
same article also absolutely prohibits States parties to this instrument from ever
suspending a core of fundamental human rights and guarantees, including inter alia,
the prohibitions against arbitrary deprivations of life and the right to be free from
cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment and torture, including rape. Where a State is
responsible for violating these fundamental rights during an internal armed conflict or
other emergency situation, the State may thus also be responsible for an additional
violation of Article 27 in some cases. The Commission notes that the Colombian
Constitution also specifically provides that, even in states of emergency or exception,
"[i]t will not be possible to suspend human rights nor fundamental liberties."( 6 )
2. The Commission's Use of International Humanitarian Law
10. Nonetheless, although one of their underlying purposes is to
prevent warfare, the American Convention and other universal and regional human rights
instruments were not designed specifically to regulate in detail internal conflict
situations and, thus, they do not contain specific rules governing the use of force and
the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian law, in contrast, does not
generally apply in peacetime and its fundamental purpose is to place restraints on the
conduct of warfare so as to diminish its effects on the victims of the hostilities.
11. Thus, the Commission invokes the norms provided by both human
rights law and international humanitarian law in analyzing specific petitions involving
alleged abuses by State agents and their proxies which arise in the context of internal
armed conflicts. The Commission proceeds in this manner because both sets of norms apply
during internal armed conflicts, although in many cases international humanitarian law may
serve as lex specialis, providing more specific standards for analysis. Of course,
it should be noted that the Commission will apply human rights norms alone in those cases
involving alleged abuses by State agents which do not occur in the context of the
hostilities.
12. As previously noted, complaints alleging, for example, arbitrary
deprivation by State agents of the right to life protected under the American Convention
clearly fall within the Commission's jurisdiction. In this regard, both Article 4 of the
Convention and humanitarian law applicable to internal armed conflicts protect this
essential right and, thus, prohibit summary executions in all circumstances. However, the
Commission in certain instances may not be able to resolve such a case, where it is
connected with an armed conflict, by reference to Article 4 of the American Convention
alone. This is because the Convention is devoid of rules that either define or distinguish
civilians from combatants and other military targets. Nor does the Convention specify the
circumstances under which it is not illegal, in the context of an armed conflict, to
attack a civilian or when civilian casualties as a consequence of military operations do
not imply a violation of international law. Consequently, the Commission must necessarily
look to and apply definitional standards and relevant rules of international humanitarian
law as sources of authoritative guidance in its resolution of this and other claimed
violations of the American Convention in combat situations.
13. For the same reasons which frequently require the Commission to
refer to international humanitarian law in resolving individual cases, the Commission also
finds it necessary to utilize humanitarian law along with human rights law, in general
reports such as this one, for the purpose of analyzing a State's international
responsibility relating to violence, where much of that violence occurs in the context of
an armed conflict. Moreover and importantly, humanitarian law rules governing internal
hostilities apply equally to and expressly bind all the parties to the conflict, i.e.
State security forces, dissident armed groups and all of their respective agents and
proxies. In contrast, human rights law generally applies to only one party to the
conflict, namely the State and its agents. Humanitarian law thus may provide the
Commission, in the preparation of a report such as this one, with a set of accepted legal
standards that enable it to examine the conduct not only of the State's security forces,
but of its armed opponents as well, and to note and classify the acts of violence that
infringe these standards.( 7 )
14. If the Commission could not refer to international humanitarian law
in preparing reports such as this one, it would be placed in the extremely difficult
situation of being asked to analyze the conduct of armed dissident groups without
reference to any previously-established standards. The General Assembly of the OAS has, on
several occasions, passed resolutions recommending that the Commission "refer to the
actions of irregular armed groups" in reporting on the human rights situation in the
member States of the inter-American system. The General Assembly passed such resolutions,
for example, during its regular session in Chile in 1991 and in the Bahamas in 1992.( 8 ) As noted above, international human rights law norms,
including the American Convention on Human Rights, the American Declaration on Human
Rights and other instruments, only apply where State responsibility is alleged.
International humanitarian law provides the only legal standard for analyzing the
activities of armed dissident groups. It is therefore absolutely necessary that the
Commission reference international humanitarian law in order to fairly and adequately
address the activities of those groups in its reporting.
15. The Commission is mindful that because of the peculiar and
confusing conditions frequently attending combat, the ascertainment of crucial facts
relating to situations arising in the context of hostilities often cannot be made with
clinical certainty. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the appropriate standard for
judging the belligerent actions of those engaged in hostilities must be based on a
reasonable appreciation of the overall situation prevailing at the time the action
occurred and not on the basis of speculation or hindsight. The appropriate classification
of and attribution for claimed violations of the Convention and international humanitarian
law connected with hostilities will depend on the particular circumstances involved. Where
the attending circumstances are unclear or unknown, the Commission may not, in good faith,
be able to attribute responsibility for the claimed violation to the proper party and thus
may abstain from reaching a conclusion regarding the alleged violation of international
law.
16. The Commission has taken the opportunity in several individual
cases to note that, apart from what has already been said, its competence to apply or
consult humanitarian law rules is also supported by the text of the American Convention,
by its own case law and by the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.( 9 ) The Commission has especially noted that in those
situations where the American Convention and humanitarian instruments apply concurrently,
Article 29(b) of the American Convention necessarily requires it to take due notice of
and, where appropriate, give legal effect to applicable humanitarian law rules.( 10 )
17. In its observations regarding this Report, the Colombian State
questioned the manner in which the Commission has invoked the application of international
humanitarian law. The State suggested that, by applying international humanitarian law to
armed dissident groups as well as to the State, the Commission has placed these two
parties to the armed conflict on the same level and failed to adequately condemn the
illegal and arguably atrocious acts committed by the armed dissident groups.
18. The Commission believes that it has made clear that it does not
consider the State and armed dissident groups to be on the same level. The State has a
unique status with certain rights duties and obligations under international law. For
example, as a party to the American Convention and other human rights treaties, the
Colombian State has freely assumed the sole responsibility and basic duty of respecting
and ensuring the human rights protected in these instruments to all persons subject to its
jurisdiction. This duty and responsibility cannot be abdicated by the State during civil
strife or any other emergency situation. The fact that humanitarian law rules are equally
binding on the government and dissident armed forces in no way affects the status of
either party to the conflict and, thus, cannot be interpreted as legitimizing the cause
for which the dissidents have taken up arms, much less recognition of their belligerence.
It merely means that the contending parties have the same obligation to respect the
restraints and prohibitions applicable to the waging of hostilities. As the Commission
notes in this Report, humanitarian law does not preclude the State from punishing members
of dissident armed groups for the commission of crimes under its domestic law. Therefore,
the Colombian State is perfectly free to try such persons for each and everyone of their
violent acts that transgress its laws even if those acts otherwise do not violate
humanitarian law. Such trials, however, must afford defendants the due process safeguards
set forth in applicable human rights and humanitarian law treaties binding on the
Colombian State.
19. However, the Commission's role is not to apply domestic criminal
law to the acts of the armed dissident groups. Instead, the Commission must analyze the
acts of armed dissident groups in the light of applicable international law norms, which
are those of international humanitarian law. The Commission notes that Colombian State
agents have, in fact, repeatedly asked the Commission to analyze the activities of armed
dissident groups in conformity with international humanitarian law. For example, during
its on-site visit to Colombia, high-level authorities of the Military Forces provided the
Commission with bound volumes of violations of international humanitarian law allegedly
committed by armed dissident groups. Civilian authorities and National Police officers
have also frequently presented to the Commission materials regarding alleged humanitarian
law violations committed by armed dissident groups. The Commission has always granted
proper weight to the information included in materials provided by the State and has used
them, where appropriate, in the preparation of this Report.
3. The Internal Armed Conflict and Applicable Norms in
Colombia
20. The Commission is not required to determine whether the nature and
level of the domestic violence in Colombia constitute an internal armed conflict or to
identify the specific humanitarian law rules governing the conflict. This is because
Colombia, unlike other States that all too frequently choose to deny the existence of such
hostilities within their territory for political or other reasons, has openly acknowledged
the factual reality of its involvement in such a conflict and the applicability of Article
3 common to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions ("common Article 3"), the 1977
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, Relating to the
Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts ("Protocol II"), and
other customary law rules and principles governing internal armed conflicts.(
11 ) The Colombian Constitution itself clearly establishes that,
"[i]n all cases international humanitarian law norms will be respected."( 12 )
21. Indeed, few OAS member States other than Colombia have so
publicly embraced international humanitarian law. Nor have other States genuinely sought
to the same extent to disseminate, with the invaluable assistance of the International
Committee of the Red Cross ("ICRC"), basic precepts of international
humanitarian law to its security forces, the other parties to the conflict and its
citizenry at large. The Colombian government and vast sectors of civil society believe
that respect for basic rules of humanitarian law is indispensable to "humanize"
the conflict and, thereby, contribute to conditions propitious for negotiations between
the warring parties and the eventual restoration of peace.( 13 )
22. The Commission wishes to express its emphatic support for these
policies and goals. However, it has noted with alarm that, despite these dissemination
efforts and professed policies, the conflict in Colombia during the past several years has
been increasingly characterized by massive and systematic violations of the most
fundamental human rights and humanitarian law rules, committed by all sides, particularly
against the civilian population.
C. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL NORMS
1. Human Rights Law
a. The Right to Life
23. The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. The
right to life has special importance, because it is the crucial basis for the exercise of
all other rights. Article 4 of the American Convention provides that, "[e]very person
has the right to have his life respected. . . . No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
his life."
24. As noted above, the contours of the right to life may change in the
context of an armed conflict, but the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life remains
absolute. The Convention clearly establishes that the right to life may not be suspended
under any circumstances, including armed conflicts and legitimate states of emergency.( 14 )
25. The Colombian Constitution similarly recognizes the
centrality of the right to life, providing that: "The right to life is
inviolable." ( 15 ) The Colombian Constitution
further provides that the death penalty will not be applied in Colombia.
b. The Right to Humane Treatment
26. As a State party to the American Convention, Colombia is bound by
Article 5 of that instrument which provides, in relevant part, that:
1. Every person has the right to
have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected.
2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to
cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment.
The prohibition on torture and cruel and unusual
treatment is also non-derogable, even in times of armed conflict or declared states of
emergency.( 16 )
27. The concept of torture is distinguished from cruel and inhumane
treatment principally based on the characteristics, the motivation and the degree of
severity of the treatment in question.( 17 ) In the
inter-American human rights system, torture is understood to be:
any act intentionally performed whereby physical or
mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation,
as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty,
or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a
person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or
mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.(
18 )
28. The Colombian State has signed the Inter-American Convention to
Prevent and Punish Torture, which details and expands upon the duties and responsibilities
set forth in Article 5 of the American Convention, and the Colombian legislature has
approved its ratification. Colombia has not yet deposited its instrument of ratification,
because the Constitutional Court is engaging in its obligatory review of the treaty.
Nonetheless, in the interim, the State has a good faith obligation to refrain from any act
which would be inconsistent with the treaty's object and purpose. In addition, Colombia
has ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
29. The Colombian Constitution provides the parallel domestic norm to
Colombia's international obligations in this area. The Constitution specifically
establishes that, "[n]obody will be subject to torture nor cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."( 19 )
c. Prohibition on Forced Disappearances
30. The forced disappearance of persons is considered to be a
particularly grave violation of international human rights law. In addition, the
systematic practice of the forced disappearance of persons constitutes a crime against
humanity.( 20 )
31. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that "the
forced disappearance of human beings is a multiple and continuous violation of many rights
under the Convention that the States Parties are obliged to respect and guarantee."( 21 ) Similarly, the preamble to the Inter-American
Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons reaffirms that forced disappearance of
persons "violates numerous non-derogable and essential human rights enshrined in the
American Convention on Human Rights, in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties
of Man, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."( 22 )
32. The forced disappearance of persons generally entails a violation
of the right to life and the right to humane treatment already discussed. A disappearance
also violates, at a minimum, the right to juridical personality, the right to personal
liberty and the right to due process of law and judicial protection.
33. In the inter-American human rights system, a forced disappearance
is considered to be:
the act of depriving a person or persons of his or
their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups
of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed
by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to
give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse
to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.( 23 )
34. The Colombian State has signed, but not yet ratified, the
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, which provides detailed
provisions regarding the State's responsibility to prevent, investigate and prosecute
forced disappearances. As noted above in connection with the Inter-American Convention to
Prevent and Punish Torture, pursuant to its signature, the State is obliged by
international law principles to act in good faith to avoid engaging in any acts which
would be inconsistent with the treaty's object and purpose. In any case, the duties and
obligations set forth in the Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons do not, in
practice, expand upon those established in international customary law and the American
Convention which are already binding upon the State.
35. Colombian domestic law also provides for a clear prohibition on the
forced disappearance of persons. The relevant provision of the Colombian Constitution
establishes that, "[n]o one will be subjected to forced disappearance."( 24 )
[ Table of Contents
| Previous | Next ]
(
1 ) See Charter of the Organization of American States, art.
106 ("There shall be an Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, whose principal
function shall be to promote the observance and protection of human rights and to serve as
a consultative organ of the Organization in these matters."); American Convention on
Human Rights, art. 41 ("The main function of the Commission shall be to promote
respect for and defense of human rights."). 1 ) See Charter of the Organization of American States, art.
106 ("There shall be an Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, whose principal
function shall be to promote the observance and protection of human rights and to serve as
a consultative organ of the Organization in these matters."); American Convention on
Human Rights, art. 41 ("The main function of the Commission shall be to promote
respect for and defense of human rights.").
(
2 ) See American
Convention on Human Rights, art. 44; Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, arts. 19-20.
(
3 ) IACHR, Second
Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.84, Doc. 39 rev., at
247 [hereinafter Second Report].
(
4 ) IACHR, Press
Release No. 5/98, April 1, 1998.
(
5 ) See IACHR,
Report No. 26/97, Case No. 11.142 (Colombia), September 30, 1997, at par. 171; IACHR,
Report No. 55/97, Case No. 11.137 (Argentina), December 22, 1997, at par. 158.
(
6 ) Political
Constitution of Colombia, art. 214(2).
(
7 ) The Commission
notes that the Colombian State has challenged the right of the Commission to apply
humanitarian law in individual cases concerning alleged excesses by its security forces
but has never challenged the Commissions right to use humanitarian law in the
preparation of general reports such as this one.
(
8 ) See
"Strengthening of the OAS in the Area of Human Rights," Resolution adopted at
the eleventh plenary session of the twenty-first regular session of the General Assembly,
Santiago, Chile, June 3-8, 1991, AG/RES. 1112 (XXI-O/91), OEA/Ser.P/XXI.O.2, 20 August
1991, Volume 1, at 78; "Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights," Resolution adopted at the eighth plenary session of the twenty-second
regular session of the General Assembly, Nassau, The Bahamas, May 18-23, 1992, AG/RES.
1169 (XXII-O/92), OEA/Ser.P/XXII.O.2, 21 June 1992, Volume 1, at 62.
(
9 ) See, e.g.,
IACHR, Report No. 26/97, Case No. 11.142 (Colombia), September 30, 1997, par. 175; IACHR,
Report No. 55/97, Case No. 11.137 (Argentina), December 22, 1997, par. 162.
(
10 ) Article 29(b),
the so-called "most-favorable-to-the-individual clause", provides that no
provision of the American Convention shall be interpreted as "restricting the
enforcement or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any
State Party or another convention to which one of said states is a party."
(
11 ) See, e.g.,
Constitutional Court Decision No. C-574, October 28, 1992. The Commission also notes that
the armed dissident groups in Colombia make frequent reference to international
humanitarian law norms, treating them as applicable. The ELN has specifically declared
that it considers itself to be bound by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Protocol II. See
Public Declaration by Commander Manuel Pérez to the press, July 15, 1995.
(
12 ) Political
Constitution of Colombia, art. 214(2).
(
13 ) When the
municipal elections were held on October 26, 1997, more than eight million voters cast an
additional ballot for peace. Through this ballot, the citizenry voted in favor of asking
the parties to the armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law. See
Technical Secretariat of the Citizenry Mandate for Peace, Life and Liberty, "Toward
Compliance with the Mandate of the Citizenry in Favor of Peace, Life and Liberty,"
November, 1997.
(
14 ) See
American Convention on Human Rights, art. 27.
(
15 ) Political
Constitution of Colombia, art. 11.
(
16 ) See
American Convention on Human Rights, art. 27.
(
17 ) See United
Nations Human Rights Commission, General Comment 7 (16º Session), doc.A/37/40, par. 2.
(
18 ) Inter-American
Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, art. 2.
(
19 ) Political
Constitution of Colombia, art. 12.
(
20 ) See
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, pmbl., par. 6; Steven R.
Ratner & Jason S. Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International
Law, 1997, at 74.
(
21 ) Velásquez
Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, par. 155.
(
22 ) Inter-American
Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, pmbl., par. 3.
(
23 ) Inter-American
Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, art. II.
(
24 ) Political
Constitution of Colombia, art. 12.
|