Summary
The Court begins with an analysis of why human rights defenders are targeted during armed conflict and displacement, highlighting the following main factors: (a) identified as “informers” or “informants” by the armed factions; (b) the type of information they handle by virtue of their organizational positions; (c) they are seen as obstacles to the aspirations of social and territorial penetration of the armed groups; and (d) their social visibility, which armed actors use to make their victimization an instrument for intimidation.
The Court noted with concern the government’s lack of action with regards to protecting human rights defenders. For instance, HRDs are met with rejection of their petitions, delay in providing aid, and inattention to the safety requirements. This is exacerbated by the fact that retaliation and targeting of HRDs actually worsens when they resort to governmental authorities for support. This means that by going to the authorities, they are risking their lives, only to be met with inaction and heightened insecurity due to governmental inaction.
This governmental inaction not only leads to a permanent state of anxiety, uncertainty and insecurity for HRDs, but also has led to further displacement or even asylum seeking in other countries. Additionally, the Court found this inaction amounts to violation of HRDs’ fundamental rights to life and personal integrity.
These rights are protected by Colombia’s international obligations, but also constitutionally. For instance, in T-719, the Court held that the right to personal integrity activates obligations to adopt protective holistic measures that have proportional scope, intensity and duration to the risks that each individual faces. As such, constitutional authorities have the obligation to identify the risk, value the source of the risk, define measures to protect the right, implement said measures, and periodically evaluate them. Additionally, the case established a a presumption of risk for displaced persons, which is met by: (a) the presentation of a petition for protection to the authority by a displaced person, (b) the petition was in fact known to the competent authority, (c) the petition presents information that demonstrates, prima facie, that that the person is indeed displaced by violence, for which the referrals made to the competent institutions and are registered in the Unified Registry of Displaced Population, and (d) the information presented specifically alludes to a specific threat to life and integrity of the petitioner or his family. Finally, the measures must be realistic, effective and adequate and must prioritize cases of Indigenous, Afro-Colombians, older persons, mothers who are heads of households, children and adolescents, persons with disabilities, and LGBTQI persons.
The Court then surveyed cases of individual HRDs in various regions of Colombia to: (1) showcase governmental incompetence regarding these individuals and the HRD community more broadly and (2) order specific, immediate and complete remedies to these leaders. For instance, in the region of Tolima, the Court evaluated the cases of around nineteen leaders who had since 2001 requested governmental assistance in the face of threats and assassinations of their community members but had received none. For instance, Luis LL filed fourteen petitions of aid after receiving multiple threats to his and his family’s life and knew of many HRDs close to him who had been assassinated yet received no response from the government. The Court in this case ordered the government to evaluate, design and implement an effective protective measure for Luis LL five days after the publication of Auto 200.
As the case of Luis LL illustrated, the government’s response to the situation of HRDs amounted to a systematic failure. Specifically, the Court identified the following problems: (1) failure to treat these aid petitions with the priority that they constitutionally merit; (2) failure to protect HRDs’ family members; (3) lack of an approach that accounts for the disproportionate impact felt by HRDs; (4) failure in the timely processing of aid petitions by HRDs; (5) failure in the studies of risk factors; and (6) incorrect risk studies that put people in better situations than they actually are in.
