Auto 006 of 2009

Nature of the Case

In 2004, the Constitutional Court of Colombia decided case T-025, where it declared an unconstitutional state of affairs in regards to the situation of millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs) due to the country’s armed conflict. The unconstitutional state of affairs was due to the massive human rights violations associated with systemic failures in the safeguarding of IDPs by the State. In order to put an end to the unconstitutional state of affairs, the Court established a structure for follow-ups that consisted of two types: (1) special proceedings to evaluate the progress made by various state agencies, in which agencies were required to provide periodic reports on their compliance with the Court’s orders; and (2) autos de seguimiento, additional written materials from the court which expanded and clarified the Court’s orders in T-025, with specific focus on groups of persons at greater vulnerability and disproportionately impacted by the internal armed conflict. Auto 006 of 200 is one of such orders, referring specifically to the situation of persons with disabilities.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

In Auto 173 of 2014(link is external), the Court followed up on the status of the orders it had issued in Auto 006 regarding persons with disabilities in the context of the armed conflict and forced displacement. In terms of critical populations within the displaced community that has disabilities, the Court found that children with disabilities continue to be excluded in a significant way and that the intersection of old age and disability continues to be worrying, given that older persons may have no assistance from the state.

The Court noted some progress with regards to the collection of information on displaced persons with disabilities. For instance, a disability qualifier was added in 2011 to the survey for displaced persons, as well as in various other government forms related to the displaced population. The conglomeration of data from various agencies also led to more realistic and accurate numbers of persons with disabilities in the displaced population. Nevertheless, the Court found this to be still insufficient. The numbers of persons with disabilities continue to be underreported and thus this leads to the incorrect impression that few displaced persons have a disability and subsequently limits the state’s ability to look at the situation from an intersectional lens and improve conditions more holistically.

Regarding the five pilot programs for prevention, the Court found that although they were carried out, the State did not follow the orders of the Court regarding the minimum requirements. Mainly, the State failed to incorporate or involve any member of the displaced community with disabilities. Additionally, there was a lack of clear goals or milestones, and the information gathered was not properly organized.

In terms of the creation of the new program, it began one and a half years late, in 2011, which the Court considered to be an “unjustified delay”. The program’s progress was hindered by the lack of specific information gathering. For instance, it was still unclear to the State what percentage of state-provided housing was adequate for persons with disabilities in their new host sites. This lack of information made it practically impossible to remediate the barriers that persons with disabilities face during displacement. The Court thus found no real progress was made in terms of prevention and it also found that the State violated one of the requirements when it failed to involve any member of the community in the design of the program.

Significance of the Case