By Natalia Urzola Gutiérrez
Jineth Bedoya Lima is a Colombian journalist and human rights defender who in 2000 was abducted, tortured and raped while working on a news report regarding the role of the Armed Forces, National Guard of the Modelo Prison and paramilitaries (right-wing, illegal armed group) in a massacre that occurred in that prison on April 27, 2000. After years of inaction by the Colombian authorities, the Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP for its name in Spanish) filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) alleging Colombia’s international responsibility for the violation of several rights included in the American Convention of Human Rights (ACHR). Petitioners also alleged the infringement of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (IACPPT) and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women “Convention of Belem do Para”. Petitioners also underscored the high-risk environment and impunity levels that journalists in Colombia face for crimes committed against them.
The proceedings before the Inter-American Human Rights System
The Inter-American System of Human Rights (IASHR) is comprised of three main bodies: the Organization of American States (OAS), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the IACHR. Its foundational document, the ACHR, was adopted in 1948 making it the oldest active regional human rights body. In tandem with the San Salvador Protocol, the two documents are the main instruments that guide human rights protection in the region.
The IASHR establishes a basic set of rights and obligatory standards of conduct that states must promote, protect and ensure. The IACHR is in charge of ensuring compliance, monitoring, processing petitions and preparing reports. Victims of human rights abuses and violations can file a petition before the IACHR, which investigates the situation and can make recommendations to States to stop human rights violations.
The IACtHR exercises compulsory jurisdiction and interprets and applies the ACHR’s provisions. Only Member states and the Commission can submit a case to the IACtHR, which is why individuals must go through the IACHR which can then refer their case to the Court.
The Bedoya Lima case: what has happened so far?
FLIP, an independent organization that advocates for press freedom, filed the petition before the Commission. In 2014, the IACHR decided there were enough merits to admit the petition filed by FLIP on behalf of Jineth Bedoya. The Commission paid special attention to the alleged participation of governmental agents in the crimes committed against Bedoya as a matter of particular significance. Similarly, the IACHR highlighted the State’s omission in preventing, investigating and punishing these crimes. Furthermore, the unjustified delay amounts to a lack of diligence, with no decision after 14 years (at the time of this decision of admissibility) since the commission of the crimes.
After careful consideration, in 2019, the IACHR filed case 12.954 before the IACtHR (Bedoya Lima et al v. Colombia). The Commission concluded that there was a real and imminent threat against the rights of the journalist and her mother since they had received constant death threats and attacks. Despite knowing this situation, the Colombian government failed to adopt reasonable measures to ensure their protection, violating their human rights. In particular, the Commission determined that the Colombian government had an obligation to act diligently to protect Jineth Bedoya from the attacks against her personal and sexual integrity, given the generalized context of sexual violence in which the Colombian armed conflict has developed. The lack of diligence and unjustified delay in continuing the criminal investigation also infringes the rights to judicial guarantee and protection.
On March 15, 2021, the IACtHR held a public hearing to hear the victim’s testimony. In a surprisingly unprecedented move, instead of arguing for its defense, Colombian government representatives withdrew from the proceedings and challenged the neutrality of the Judges (except for Vio Grossi and Ferrer MacGregor) alleging a lack of judicial guarantees and objectivity. As a result, the hearing had to be suspended. On March 17, 2021, the Court found that the government’s arguments lacked merit. The two unchallenged judges in charge of deciding the petition determined that there was no evidence of any direct interest of the challenged judges in the case, nor had there been a previous intervention from any of them. Similarly, the judges found that there was no evidence of subjectivity in the questions and general interventions made by the challenged judges during the public hearing.
On March 22, 2021, the hearing resumed, and Colombia agreed to join. On March 24, 2021, the IACtHR issued a series of provisional measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the victims. The Court considered that this situation is one of extreme urgency and seriousness that could eventually lead to irreparable damage against the victims. The Court highlighted the duty of States to ensure the safety of all inhabitants, especially those who are linked to cases related to the ACHR.
What now?
The IACtHR must now decide whether the Colombian government is responsible for the alleged human rights violations suffered by the victims in what could become a landmark case. At its core is gender-based violence in the particular context of the Colombian armed conflict. This case opens the possibility for the Court to issue a decision regarding the State’s duty to prevent human rights violations in cases of freedom of expression of women journalists. It could also be an opportunity for the IACtHR to apply a gender lens to State’s protection duties to ensure the safety of women in a particularly risky situation. Most importantly, it could also address the implications of the government’s withdrawal, which in and of itself creates doubts about Colombia’s (and other countries’) commitment to the IASHR, undermining the fragile context of what appears to be a strong regional human rights system.