HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ‘PERPLEXED’ OVER GAPS IN COLOMBIA’S IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL, POLITICAL RIGHTS
| Press Release HR/CT/646 |
Human Rights Committee
Eightieth Session
2168th Meeting (AM)
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ‘PERPLEXED’ OVER GAPS IN COLOMBIA’S IMPLEMENTATION
OF INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL, POLITICAL RIGHTS
The Human Rights Committee had been “perplexed” by the gap between the clearly expressed ambitions of the Government of Colombia to bring the country further in line with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the reality of its actions, its Chairman said this morning.
Wrapping up the panel’s review of Colombia’s fifth periodic report, Committee Chairman Abdelfattah Amor (Tunisia) noted certain troubling social and cultural attitudes, a major example being the treatment of rape victims seeking abortion. Punishing women who had been raped by denying them any legal medical alternative was akin to heaping one outrage upon another, he said.
Luz Marina Hill of Colombia’s Defense Ministry said the delegation would provide a detailed report on the abortion issue, the legal, social and cultural aspects of which required deeper consideration.
She also addressed other questions raised by the experts, including the continuing state of emergency or exception in her country; military penal justice; and the relationship between the Government and non-governmental organizations.
Earlier, experts had expressed concern about such questions as the granting of amnesty to people who were subsequently implicated in war crimes or crimes against humanity; persistent in-built discrimination against Afro-Colombians; the rights of indigenous populations to full citizenship; the tapping of civilian telephone lines; and the ill-treatment of human rights defenders.
The 18-member Committee monitors the efforts of world governments to ensure respect for civil liberties, promote self-determination, and safeguard fundamental freedoms. It does so by monitoring implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols; the first allows individuals to submit complaints to the Geneva-based expert panel, and the second seeks to abolish the death penalty.
When it reconvenes at 11 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday 17 March, the Human Rights Committee will begin its consideration of Germany’s fifth periodic report.
Background
The Human Rights Committee met this morning to continue its consideration of Colombia’s fifth periodic report on compliance with the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/COL/2002/5). For a summary of the report, see Press Release HR/CT/645 of 15 March.
Delegation’s Response to Oral Questions
LUIS GUILLERMO GIRALDO (Colombia), head of the delegation, thanked the experts for the dialogue and first round of questions, which got underway yesterday afternoon. He would let members of the delegation with expertise in specific areas answer the Committee’s respective questions. As for the overall concern about the lack of statistics on certain issues, he said that he would listen to the Committee’s questions and try to provide data where indicated. Otherwise, the figures could perhaps be sent to the Committee from Colombia’s respective home Ministries.
LUZ MARINA HILL, of Colombia’s Defense Ministry, said that the delegation would provide the Committee with a copy of its 2002 and 2003 constitutional reforms and legislative decrees so that the experts would have a better idea of the scope and/or limitations of the measures. She said that under those changes, judicial policing functions would not be undertaken by all security forces, but only by those persons given such authority by the Attorney General. The powers under the 2003 decree would not be given permanent effect, but would be implemented for a limited period.
On compliance with the Committee’s recommendations, she said that it had always been Colombia’s intention to adhere to and apply the suggestions of all international monitors. With that in mind, the Government had adopted decree 288 of 1996, under which a clear-cut and expeditious procedure -- with the standing of law –- was established to implement the recommendations of the Committee or other international bodies. At the same time, the Committee of Ministers overseeing that measure had the duty to consider the economic effects of implementing such recommendations. She added that the Minister’s Committee had deemed “unfavourable” only a few of those recommendations. But that did not mean that Colombia would fail to abide by its obligations. Another act required the Ministers to report to the Government on its reasoning and political leaders would in turn report to the relevant monitoring body.
On conscientious objection, she said that the Constitution required obligatory military service. The concept of conscientious objection did not exist, as such. There were however certain exceptions that would exempt persons from military service, religious grounds being among the foremost. Also, unless they volunteered, persons belonging to indigenous populations did not have to serve in the military.
Moving on, she said that Colombia would send statistics on violence against women in Colombia. She stressed that domestic violence was just one aspect of gender violence. The scourge also included trafficking in women, and Colombia would need the assistance of the international community to help it cope with the problem.
On the relationship between the Government and human rights organizations, she said that one of the Government’s tasks was to seek out and forge alliances with national human rights groups, particularly in the field of gender equality and women’s rights.
Turning next to the powers of Colombia’s Constitutional Court, she said that body retained the power to control, monitor and verify the constitutionality of legislative acts handed down by the executive branch. Specifically to the Committee’s concerns, the Court closely monitored acts that took measures to restore public order, particularly those that might be seen to infringe on fundamental freedoms.
Responding to concerns expressed about so-called “peasant soldiers”, she said that those civilians were not a separate or distinct from State security forces. They were fulfilling their mandatory military service and were subject to all the laws and rules that governed all public service and law enforcement officers.
CARLOS FRANCO, Director of the Human Rights Programme in the Office of the Vice-President, addressed questions about the deterioration in human rights since 1997, particularly the increase in political murders. Documentation from 2003 showed that the situation had improved, although the results were not fully satisfactory. Last year had seen a 33 per cent drop in the number of massacres. Assassinations of union workers had dropped from 114 to 103 and 2,200 people had been abducted last year compared to 2,700 people in 2000. Those figures showed the effect of the Government’s policies.
He said that, according to a document published by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) last year, while there had been a drop in murder levels, the number of political assassinations had not fallen. However, it was not certain that all 22,000 deaths mentioned had been the result of political motives. The fact that fewer mayors, union members and other figures had been killed must mean something. Those figures, together with the fact that opposition figures had won political office, showed that the situation was improving.
Regarding the accountability of government security services, he said 86 per cent of members of illegal armed groups who had surrendered had presented themselves to the military and other armed forces, which showed they were trustworthy. In 2002, the independent ombudsman had received 9,000 complaints, of which only 260 had involved public law enforcement. It was still a problem to be worked on, but there was a pattern of change among the public forces, which had received better approval ratings than the Catholic Church.
Referring to the state of exception, he emphasized that when decisions were taken, the State followed zealously the principles of legality and non-discrimination. Certain circumstances made the state of exception imperative. Throughout the process, which had ended in February 2003, the Government had bowed to the decisions of the Constitutional Court. Government decisions were aimed at controlling the situation, not restricting political rights.
Emphasizing that Colombia had held an important discussion about the transformation of the nature of internal conflict, he said that, given the democratic institutions existing in the country, there was no justification whatsoever for armed insurrection, especially given also the presence of a Special Representative of the United Nations. Abduction was a serious crime against international humanitarian law as was the laying of anti-personnel mines. Just last year, security forces had carried out demining work in 608 areas, unearthing more than 60 tonnes of dynamite.
Turning to social rights, he said the report reflected the work done in the areas of socio-economic stabilization, education and internally displaced persons, noting that the Solidarity Network had been the only entity to have its budget doubled. A committee dealing with displaced persons would meet on 18 March to respond to a ruling by the Constitutional Court. In addition, large amounts of land had been given to Afro-Colombians and indigenous peoples.
Next taking the floor was ANDRES RAMIREZ, Deputy Prosecutor, who said categorically that the de-centralization of the National Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Unit had strengthened that body. The process had, among other things, increased the number of attorneys general nearly two fold. He said it was important to realize, particularly for a country like Colombia, which was under the constant threat of conflict and paramilitary activity, that the possibility of ensuring evidentiary proof and of procuring and protecting witnesses of crimes against humanity depended on the appropriate, timely and speedy reaction of the Attorney General’s Office. That was why 11 support units had been set up throughout the country, located in “sensitive” areas where the conflict was ongoing, so that victims and witnesses could have greater access to legal protections and services.
After detailing the Unit’s conviction rate and its internal policing and jurisdictional procedures, he said a 2003 law had reformed the scope of the work that could be handled by the Attorney General’s Office, particularly towards promoting more openness and transparency. That law would take effect in varying degrees over the next three years. The measure was also expected to have a career track, which would help strengthen the Unit, as well as the Office itself. He went on to clarify the expert’s concerns about perceived jurisdictional conflicts between military, civil and administrative courts, highlighting several cases in Santo Domingo, Pueblorico and Mapiripan massacres.
Ms. HILL next addressed a series of questions concerning reports that State and military officials kept intelligence files on human rights defenders. She said that one of the Government’s priorities had been to strengthen relations between human rights NGOs and the State itself. Generally, intelligence activities were legal, particularly when they dealt with national security matters involving the very survival of the State. The activities of human rights defenders were not as such the target of government intelligence agencies. Regarding reports that the phones of certain human rights workers had been tapped, she said those incidents had been investigated and appropriate measures had been taken. As the investigation proceeded and disciplinary measures were identified, the Government would inform the Committee about the final outcome.
Mr. FRANCO, Director of the Human Rights Programme in the Vice-Presidency, said that, with regard to material and human resources provided to the Public Prosecutor’s office, the Government had invested in one year as many resources as had been allotted for four years. The Government had offered prosecutors a meeting with high military officers, but they had not yet taken up the offer. A national programme of action and an emergency centre were planned.
He said that while there had been profound differences with NGOs, regarding whether they recognized the improvements made in the situation, they had not been persecuted. Regarding the 2002 elections, he said the Government’s approach had been to provide electoral guarantees, electoral transparency, monitoring committees, and security for candidates, political caucuses, alternative communications networks and international observers. Colombia had moved from rhetorical to concrete guarantees.
On indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians, he said there were quotas for both groups in the House of Representatives, as well as the Senate. There was also a protection programme and the Government had set up a committee to assess risks to the rights of ethnic minorities. Special plans were being made to improve protection for indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. Colombians wanted democracy, and their Government wished to guarantee such democracy with human rights and asked the international community for its support in achieving that.
Questions and Comments by Experts
CHRISTINE CHANET, expert from France, said that while the Colombian delegation had tried to give an overview of the changes that had occurred in the country, a recent report presented to the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights had noted a considerable deterioration in the situation, highlighted by a considerable increase in rights violations -- some even attributable to government forces or with the agreement, tacit or other wise, of the public prosecutor’s office –- which hindered the ability of the State to guarantee the promotion and protection of human rights.
While she was certain that the delegation would disagree with that perception, the report nevertheless stood. Bringing Colombia in line with the tenets of the Covenant should be ongoing, particularly regarding judicial matters. Here, she acknowledged that perhaps the report had referred to an incident that had taken place in 2002, but she reiterated the need for government reforms to continue. She was concerned by what appeared to be the immense powers wielded by public prosecutors, as well as the power of military courts.
The expert from the United States, RUTH WEDGWOOD, was also concerned about military courts and insufficient investigations into reports of massacres. She also reminded the delegation that it had given no answers to questions about the abortion laws. On the treatment of human rights defenders, she requested more information on so-called “incidental overhears” of human rights workers in government wiretapping. She wondered whether some civilian body might have oversight of such incidents. That practice, when married with rhetoric from any level of government -- including the President’s office -- that was hostile to human rights defenders, presented a perception problem.
She was specifically worried that in a climate of paramilitary violence, militia commanders might mistake the Government’s hostile comments about the behaviour of NGOs as a “hunting license”. Finally she said that despite the delegation’s assurance that Colombia’s political leadership welcomed the work and participation of civil society actors, she was nevertheless concerned by an apparent impatience with human rights organizations’ “right to be annoying”.
HIPOLITO SOLARI-YRIGOYEN, expert from Argentina, asked what mechanisms had been created to disseminate information on the comments made and criticisms levelled by the Committee.
PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI (India) asked how many laws had been declared invalid or inconsistent with the Covenant.
He also expressed concern regarding the conferring of judicial police powers upon the security forces, which could have serious implications for human rights defenders and endanger the democratic way of life. How was the independence of the judiciary secured? What powers did the Public Prosecutor’s International Humanitarian Law Unit and the ombudsman have?
ROMAN WIERUSZEWSKI (Poland), Committee Vice-Chairman, asked about an atmosphere of fear among NGOs.
MAURICE GLELE-AHANHANZO (Benin) asked about persistent in-built discrimination against Afro-Colombians. To what extent did indigenous people become fully-fledged citizens? Could all Colombia’s human rights problems be attributed solely to the armed conflict?
MAXWELL YALDEN (Canada) reiterated questions raised by other experts about abortion and violence against women, particularly about the criminalization of abortion. What was meant by “reduced penalties” for abortions in cases of rape and what was meant by “extraordinary circumstances”?
NIGEL RODLEY (United Kingdom) asked what would happen in cases where people were granted amnesty and then subsequently found to have been implicated in war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Delegation’s Response
Mr. GIRALDO said that if some of the questions could not be answered in this final round, the responses would be sent later.
On the powers of prosecuting attorneys, Mr. RAMIREZ reminded the Committee that national penal codes set the parameters of such powers, and overall, due process was guaranteed under the Constitution. He added that a panel of judges monitored cases in which legal breaches were thought to have occurred. The Attorney General’s Office had more than 18,000 staff working throughout the country, and some instances of corruption were inevitable. That was true of any country. Recently, some 112 officials had been dismissed when investigations revealed that they had been engaged in illegal activities. The delegation would provide the Committee with specifics on each of those cases.
Turning to military justice, he said that since the Constitution had come into force there was a ban on having military courts pass judgment on civilians. He added that the High Council had been created to monitor the resources of the judiciary, as well as the conduct of judges and constitutional institutions. That oversight was key to ensuring the independence of the judiciary.
Ms. HILL said that under the previous Government, there was no state of emergency or exception, but that there had been and continued to be such conditions under the current leadership. Based on the suggestions of international bodies, a new code making military penal justice autonomous and independent had been adopted in 2000, she said. Those courts now only dealt with acts that occurred “within the scope of military duties”.
On the relationship between the Government and NGOs, she said that there were no systematic tapping of the phone lines of human rights workers. The incident that had been reported was an isolated case involving only one NGO. If an instance of wiretapping was discovered, the individuals perpetrating it were subject to disciplinary actions and penalties.
Owing to a lack of time, she said that the delegation would provide a detailed report on the abortion issue, which had certain legal, social and cultural aspects requiring deeper consideration.
Wrapping up the expert’s review, Committee Chairman ABDELFATTAH AMOR (Tunisia) praised the seriousness with which Colombia was dealing with human rights issues in the country. Nevertheless, the experts had been “quite perplexed” -- the Government had expressed clear ambitions and goodwill to see progress toward bringing Colombia further in line with the Covenant, but when that goodwill came up against the reality of the actions that had been taken, some gaps appeared.
For example, he said that while there might be fewer abductions, there were still many. There were fewer arrests during elections, but they still occurred. The judicial system had improved, but inefficiencies still existed. Moreover, certain troubling social and cultural attitudes lingered. A major example of that was in the treatment of rape victims seeking abortion. Meting out punishment to women who had been raped -– providing them with no legal medical alternative -– was akin to heaping one outrage upon another. Abortion for medical reasons did not seem to be handled with much tolerance at all, he added.
He was also concerned about incidents of civilian phone tapping and the ill-treatment of human rights defenders. So while the Committee would applaud the advances that Colombia had made, what remained to be done was much greater. A great deal of information had been provided during the past two days, but not enough. He was pleased that the delegation had agreed to provide written information, but he reminded the Government officials that that information would have to be in the Committee’s hands by no later than Friday.
* *** *