[ad_1]
In 154 pages were the arguments of four of the six magistrates of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, who accepted a joint protection, which in the first instance had been denied by the Superior Court of Bogotá, to protect the peaceful protest
1. What did the Supreme Court evaluate?
The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice analyzed the challenge against a ruling of the Superior Court of Bogotá that had rejected a guardianship. This appeal was presented by 49 citizens –among students, teachers, opinion leaders and social organizations– who affirm that, at least since 2005, the State has violated their right to peaceful protest, citizen participation, life, personal integrity, free movement and movement, among others.
According to the guardianship, this is given by “Systematic, violent and arbitrary intervention of the Public Force in demonstrations”. To support their arguments, the citizens brought videos and testimonies about these types of violations.
(Also read: Guardians are studying to file contempt for apologies from the Ministry of Defense)
2. What was the main conclusion?
The Court found that “there was and may continue to exist” a aggression and violation of the right to protest, events that are not isolated, but systematic and constant.
To reach this conclusion, the Court evaluated cases in Bogotá, Cali, Barranquilla and Medellín that were presented during the 2019 National Strike, protests in which it found an arbitrary, disproportionate or excessive use of force by the police, the Esmad and even the army.
This systematicity, says the Court, does not depend on verifying a high number of cases, but, according to International Law, on homogeneous patterns of behavior, factors that distinguish the aggressor or a plural number of victims with common characteristics.
(It may interest you: Harsh criticism from magistrates who departed from the protest ruling)
The censorship ruling affirms that the law cannot protect “violent or vandalism protest”, nor can propaganda to war
3. Does the ruling endorse vandalism or violence in protests and demonstrations?
No. The Court assures that the Constitution protects peaceful protest, which is related to freedom of expression and thought, since renouncing constructive criticism, the right to rationally dissent, to question the Government “is the propitious scenario for them to flourish. dictatorships ”.
Instead, the ruling censors “all the violent and irrational forms of making claims for the protection of rights”, affirming that the law cannot protect “violent or vandalism protest”, nor can it protect propaganda for war, apology for hatred, crime or, in general, “violence as a way to solve problems”.
In any case, the decision points out, “not every defiant act constitutes violence” and if it were faced with an act of that nature, this does not give the Public Force a license to act outside the law.
(In addition: Government will request that the Constitutional Court review guardianship over protests)
4. What were the orders that the high court gave to the Government and other authorities?
The ruling ordered the Government to refrain from continuing to carry out conduct that violates the peaceful protest. Also to form a working table with the 49 guardians to restructure the guidelines on the use of force in demonstrations and issue regulations. further must create a statute of reaction, use and verification of force in demonstrations, and issue an administrative act for officials to maintain neutrality in the face of protests.
The Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office must issue a protocol to be able to carry out verifications on captures in marches. He also ordered the government to publish the ruling on its web pages until Congress issues a regulation on the protest. And he ordered the Defense Minister to offer public apologies for the excesses of force, among other measures.
(In context: The 14 orders of the Court for the ‘systematic aggression’ to the protest)
5. Why is there talk of stigmatization?
The Court found that the Government has not maintained neutrality in the face of the demonstrations that criticize its management and has promoted stereotypes about the protesters with campaigns such as “we don’t stop, we move forward”.
Thus, the Court said, It is questionable that the authorities are not neutral, which ignores the government’s duty to promote participation and pluralism of thought, which should exist in a democracy.
In addition, the Court questioned that the Prosecutor’s Office carried out massive raids on the homes of those who are going to protest and assured that the Police are using legal instruments to justify illegitimate and arbitrary arrests against citizens who were simply on the street.
(We recommend: Prosecutor asks to comply with Supreme Court ruling on protests)
The Court did not suspend the activities of Esmad, it said that this force is necessary to deal with extreme situations.
César Melgarejo / THE TIME
6. Can Esmad dissolve protests?
Although the high court had been asked to suspend Esmad’s activities, the Court upheld it, stating that this body is needed to attend to “extreme situations”. But the Court assures that the use of force is the last ratio, which means that it is the last route to which one should go because dialogue and forms of mediation must first be sought to avoid a risk of confrontation.
Thus, says the high court, the use of force must be exceptional, planned, proportional and should be left exclusively for situations in which the life of other people or a “constitutionally protected asset” is at risk, since the work of the Police and Esmad is to take care of protesting citizens, not to impede their right.
(More of your interest: Could the Court’s ruling have implications in the case of Dilan Cruz?)
7. Why were shotguns ordered to be suspended?
12-gauge shotguns, which fire a bag with up to 700 lead pellets, are used by the Esmad. One of the cases under analysis by the magistrates was that of the young student Dilan Cruz, who died last year after being hit in the head by a shotgun of this type, fired by an Esmad agent.
In that situation, says the Court, the use of the weapon was not proportional and necessary. With this and other cases in which the loss of an eye due to the impacts of this weapon was reported, the ruling concluded that the shotgun is not being used properly and ordered to suspend it until there are “guarantees” of a responsible and measured handling. The suspension had been requested by the Attorney General’s Office.
Other Justice notes that may interest you:
-Investigating information on possible attack against Duque
-The Prosecutor’s Office reconstructed events in which the soldier shot Juliana
-The judicial office that is an example of digital justice in the Caribbean
MILENA SARRALDE DUQUE
Deputy editor of Justice
On twitter: @MSarralde
[email protected]
[ad_2]
