The Independence of the Colombian Judiciary is not a new issue. Since before 1998, when the International Center for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy researched the Colombian Judiciary for the World Conference on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Colombia has been fighting the allegations. On March 23, 2009 the Inter-American Commission on Human rights heard allegations against the Colombian government. The Petitioners made three allegations in regards to the current state of the Colombian Judiciary. As evidence of the lack of judicial autonomy, the Petitioners pointed to the extraditions of eighteen paramilitaries by the Colombian government to the United States, the State’s lack of respect for the Judiciary, and the State’s monitoring of the Judiciary via wire tapping.
The Independence of the Colombian Judiciary is not a new issue. Since before 1998, when the International Center for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy researched the Colombian Judiciary for the World Conference on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Colombia has been fighting the allegations. On March 23, 2009 the Inter-American Commission on Human rights heard allegations against the Colombian government. The Petitioners made three allegations in regards to the current state of the Colombian Judiciary. As evidence of the lack of judicial autonomy, the Petitioners pointed to the extraditions of eighteen paramilitaries by the Colombian government to the United States, the State’s lack of respect for the Judiciary, and the State’s monitoring of the Judiciary via wire tapping.
This past May, the State sent eighteen paramilitaries being held for human rights violations to the United States. After soliciting the authorities, the State has yet to give some form of guarantee the paramilitaries will be returned to Colombia to be tried for their crimes. Petitioners turned to these extraditions and the vagueness of their return to demonstrate to the Commission the unwillingness of the government to cooperate. In a sense such state actions present “grave consequences for the rights of the victims” and a denial of justice by the judicial officials, said Gustavo Gallon with the Commision Colombiana de Juristas. Essentially, the victims of the paramilitaries are being denied the rights as guaranteed by Article 1 of the Colombian Constitution. The Petitioners criticized the State’s ineffective mechanism to process the paramilitaries and the lack of transparency in its dealings. “Such actions by the judicial authorities in effect negate justice” and serves as evidence to their conditioned status, concluded Gallon.
Secondly, as evidence for the compromised state of the judiciary, the Petitioners presented statements by the Executive of ignoring court rulings, denounced judicial actions and decisions, and tapping of the Justices phone lines. The Petitioners explained the interception of telephone conversations obstructs Justices investigations and constitutes a form of judicial intimidation.
Effectively, the Petitioners asked the Commission to conduct a series of investigations and release a report regarding the investigations with a list of suggestions recommending remedies. In the report, the Petitioners asked the Commission to define measures that will guarantee the return, trial, and punishment of the paramilitaries. Also, the Petitioners asked the State of Colombia to remove from office the conspirators involved with the obstructions of justice as determined by the Commission.
The Colombian government responded to these allegations by referring to its success as the most stable of the South American countries. And in trifling time, the judicial independence and authority of the judges is what pushed the country forward during its difficult times. Contrary to the allegations, the state said the Judiciary has been the “ironing board of salvation.” The State claims that although the Executive may not have always agreed with the Judiciary, they were always obeyed
In regards to the extraditions, the State contended the delay in returning paramilitaries for trial were the logistics. Luis Gonzalez with Unidad de Justicias y Paz explained the State needed to coordinate with the victims, attorneys, and contract firms. The State declared they have released ten of the paramilitaries and are currently in communication with others in resolution of this issue. When addressing the allegations of the Petitioners of the lack of autonomy in the Judiciary, the State responded by giving the Commission a civics lesson. The State discussed the structure of the judicial branch stating the defects were collective due to the interrelations of each branch like any other democratic nation. Although the branches of government were co-dependent, the State explained that the Judiciary maintained complete autonomy. Where the Petitioners’ quoted the President reprimanding the Judiciary, the State quoted the President respecting the decisions of the courts. Luz Stella Aponte with the Corporation REINICIAR explained the discrepancies of ideology are normal in any democracy. The State, responding to the issue of the court monitoring, announced it is currently conducting a serious investigation in an attempt to have the results as soon as possible. The State did however explain that the only way for the State to be able to monitor anyone is via a court sanction, and believes that this has not occurred.
The Commission’s concern was more in regards to the States procedures in dealing with the paramilitaries and additional safeguards in place to ensure the interceptions of the courts’ electronic communication do not persist. The Commission wanted simple definitions of the Colombian intelligence role and competence of the Judiciary. The Petitioners responded with concern to the truth of the States statements. The Colombian government has previously contended the issues of the extraditions were resolved when they were not. In light of the past dark dealings, the Petitioners asked the Commission to push the State to act with transparency in respect to returning the paramilitaries for trial. The Petitioners then presented statements by newspapers and magazines demonstrating how the Executive mistreats the judicial personnel contrary to what the State claimed. In closing the Petitioners again reaffirmed the need for an investigation on these issues. In answering the Commission’s questions concerning the procedural dealings with the paramilitaries, the State again explained the logistical realities of the Colombian system when dealing with extraditions. With every logistical problem they State faced, Luis Gonzalez with Unidad de Justicia y Paz, the State improves. Attempting to define the dealings of the State’s Intelligence, Carlos Franco with Programa Presidencial para Derechos Humanos Colombia explained the Intelligence has limited capabilities to intercept phone calls and conversations. The State instead reminded the Commission and the Petitioners of the importance of the intelligence tools to obtain the truth in serious criminal activity and that at this time an independent investigation is being conducted in regards to these allegations. The State, welcomed, as it claimed it always has, the idea of inspections and invited the Commission to visit—they need only say when. It is important to note the State has in the past denied the Commission to investigate issues.
Essentially what is at stake is justice and the fundamental elements of democracy. If the actions of the Executive undermining the Judiciary are true, in turn the State is effectively undermining the fundamental human rights of it citizens and the legitimacy of the role it plays in ending these abuses. More concerning is, that unless the State takes more effective steps in resolving and preventing such judicial abuses and interceptions, the State is perpetuating the human rights violations of its citizens. Most likely the Commission will conduct an investigation if the issues continue unresolved. As such, then the State will not be held to answer just to its people and the Commission, but the whole Inter-American system affecting its relationship with its neighboring countries in what may be a most consequential way—trade.
