[ad_1]
The hearing convened by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. H H. At the request of the Truth Commission, which was held a few weeks ago, it is not the only difference that the Duque government manifests towards this international body.
It is not a secret for anyone the annoyance caused to the Colombian State that the Commission for the Clarification of the Truth went to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), as it did on December 8 in a virtual audience, to state that it has had difficulties with certain state entities in gathering information for its final report. In an interview with this newspaper, Camilo Gómez, director of ANDJE (National Agency for Legal Defense of the State), referred to the issue and expressed his disagreement with the treatment that, in his opinion, the international organization has been giving the country.
(Also read: Truth Commission calls on institutions to deliver confidential information)
What was the controversy with the IACHR regarding the hearing requested by the Truth Commission?
Before the hearing, Colombia had presented to the IACHR the considerations for which the hearing should not be held. Hearings before the IACHR can be requested by social organizations, victims or the State, or the IACHR can order them ex officio, but it turns out that the Truth Commission is a state entity that requested a hearing to speak about the State itself, that does not exist legally in the IACHR regulations. In addition, those who can request on behalf of the State an international action before that body are the president, the Foreign Ministry and the Legal Defense Agency. The Agency defends all branches of public power, not only the Executive, we are the lawyers of the people and of the Truth Commission, so to speak, in international instances. And if the Truth Commission has any complaints or concerns, I think the way forward is to sit down with the public entities of the corresponding branch to discuss them.
But the Truth Commission has said that it had to go to international bodies because they exhausted the national ones without response …
I have frequent and fluid conversations with the JEP, as well as with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the military criminal justice, the Supreme Court … with the Truth Commission, the times that Father Francisco de Roux (president of that Commission) calls me, I am ready. He is a friend of mine, known for many years, but I have tried to contact him and have not been able to answer. I am waiting to buy you a coffee, to know your concerns, and if there are any, we will look for solutions.
(Also read: The government’s annoyance with the IACHR due to requests from the Truth Commission)
You have said that the IACHR is not a guarantor of the peace process and should not have admitted this hearing. To what instance, then, should the Truth Commission turn?
The Peace Agreement expressly states which are the entities that monitor its compliance, and the IACHR is not there, there are the United Nations, the Security Council, the Kroc Institute and others, but the IACHR is not there, that is not its paper. It is impossible that, if there are discrepancies, they cannot be solved internally and we end up accusing ourselves internationally. It seems absurd to me, it is that the Truth Commission is an official entity, it is not an NGO.
Why did you say that the IACHR had “certain political overtones”?
The Colombian State has been responsible to international entities, it has been fulfilled, promoter of the IACHR, of the birth of the Inter-American System, and one finds the Commission with a series of disagreements with the Colombian State. Process cases at will, it takes 20 years on average for each case and there are procedural imbalances. Finally, this is a legal process where the parties should have the same procedural treatment, and the IACHR does not apply it, it simply ignores the positions of the State or does not even take them into account.
(Also read: Reparations by the Colombian State to the judgment of the Inter-American Court on Petro)
How many processes are active in the IACHR against Colombia?
As of October, according to the IACHR, there are 2,068 petitions filed against Colombia, of which 1,125 have been processed and 764 have been notified, and we are awaiting notification of the other 361. The rest do not know if they were rejected or are under study. The system collapsed. Colombia is judged by the Inter-American System because internal justice does not operate, as it turns out that the Commission does not either because it takes 20 years. It is an absolute paradox for a human rights commission to judge a State for delays in the application of justice, when the handling of cases is much more delayed there.
Could it be that so many processes are due to the fact that the State is not applying justice correctly or to the systematic violations of human rights in the country?
In Colombia, enormous efforts have been made to apply justice promptly and fully. I believe that it is a country with instruments that no other has, the JEP, starting there, we have the courts and more and more instruments of justice. But when a system like the Inter-American decides to open useless cases, as the petitions grow, then the substantive cases are not so many. Furthermore, Colombia often admits responsibility because if the State screw up, it must respond.
What do you mean by “useless cases”?
They open investigations to Colombia for totally inconsequential issues. Last year, which shocked me a lot, they brought us a complaint from a Colombian woman because the Council of the Judiciary had not fixed the dampness of the wall of the house that is adjacent to the Council’s facilities. Cases of fights between neighbors that the Police inspector does not resolve become a complaint before the Commission and they admit them (…) It becomes like a fourth instance: who did not like the decision of the Colombian justice, goes there to see if it goes better. The Inter-American System can only operate in a subsidiary manner, that is, a Colombian has to exhaust the internal instances to be able to go to the Inter-American System, but we have seen that this is not fulfilled.
Has the Colombian government ever thought of leaving the Inter-American System?
When there is a ruling against, then the decision is to get out? No. Colombia has not thought about withdrawing, but it does want a system that works and is solid, not a system that has biases or a discriminatory procedural treatment, Colombia cannot be treated that way. We must find a solid system not only for Colombia, but for all States, a system that operates within the parameters that correspond to it, which are subsidiarity and equality in procedural treatment.
