2
REPORT No. 50/10[1]
PETITION 2779-02
ADMISSIBILITY
ARANZAZU MENESES DE JIMÉNEZ
COLOMBIA
March 18, 2010
I. SUMMARY
1. On August 19, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“the IACHR” or “the Commission”) received a petition lodged by the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers’ Collective Corporation (“the petitioners”) alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Colombia (“the State,” “the Colombian State,” or “Colombia”) in its failure to comply with the judgment handed down on February 21, 2002, by the Family and Labor Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of the Caquetá Judicial District, which affected the life and physical integrity of Aranzazu Meneses de Jiménez and her family, and in its failure to investigate and punish those responsible for the threats made against the alleged victim and for the attack she suffered on August 6, 2001, in the city of Florencia, department of Caquetá.
2. The petitioners claimed that the State was responsible for violating the right to life, to humane treatment, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention” or “the American Convention”), in conjunction with Articles 1.1 of that same instrument and Articles 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. During the processing of the petition, it was expanded to include claims regarding violations of the right personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to movement and residence, enshrined in Articles 7, 8, and 22 of the American Convention, and of the right to work enshrined in Articles 6 and 7 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (“Protocol of San Salvador”).
3. In response, the State claimed that the petitioners’ contentions were inadmissible on the grounds that they would be seeking to have the Commission act as a fourth instance, that there was no characterization of facts that would tend to establish violations of Articles 7 and 22 of the American Convention, and that the Commission lacked the competence to hear violations of Articles 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Salvador. In turn, the petitioners claimed that in connection with the noncompliance with the protective judgment of February 21, 2002, they had met the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention, through that ruling, and that in connection with the attack on the alleged victim and the threats made against her, more than eight years after the incident the investigations have not succeeded in identifying and punishing the guilty, triggering the exception to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies rule established in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention.
4. After analyzing the positions of the parties and the petition’s compliance with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to rule the claim admissible for the purpose of examining the alleged violation of Articles 8.1, 22, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established by Article 1.1 thereof; to rule it inadmissible as regards Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof and Articles 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Salvador through the failure to comply with the judgment handed down on February 21, 2002, by the Family and Labor Civil Chamber of the Caquetá Judicial District Superior Court, as well as Articles 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; to notify the parties of that decision; and to order its publication.
II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION
5. On June 6, 2002, the IACHR received a request for precautionary measures on behalf of Aranzazu Meneses de Jiménez. On June 10, 2002, the Commission asked the State to return information within the following 15 days. On July 3, 2002, the IACHR received a submission from the petitioners containing additional information on the situation of Aranzazu Meneses, which was conveyed to the State on July 10, 2002. On July 15, 2002, the State lodged a submission containing the information requested by the IACHR, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their comments.
6. On August 19, 2002, the IACHR received a petition that was recorded as No. P-2779/02 and, after conducting a preliminary analysis, the IACHR conveyed a copy of its relevant parts to the State on September 13, 2002, with a deadline of 20 days for it to return information in compliance with Article 30.4 of its Rules of Procedure. The State submitted its comments on October 11, 2002, and they were forwarded to the petitioners for their comments. On December 4, 2002, the Commission received a communication with additional information from the State, which was forwarded to the petitioners with a 15-day deadline for comments. On December 12, 2002, the IACHR received a communication from the petitioners suggesting a proposal for friendly settlement, which was conveyed to the State for its comments.
7. In response, the State requested a 30-day extension for submitting its comments, which was granted by the IACHR. On October 25, 2004, the Commission again asked the State for information. On December 16, 2005, the Commission received a comments submission from the State, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their comments. On April 6, 2009, the Commission asked the petitioners for up-to-date information on the case. On July 7, 2009, the Commission received a communication from the petitioners, which was conveyed to the State for its comments. The State submitted its comments on August 17, 2009, and they were forwarded to the petitioners for their comments. On September 4, 2009, the State submitted a communication relating to its comments submission of August 17, 2009, which was forwarded to the petitioners for comments. On September 28, 2009, the Commission received a comments submission from the petitioners, which was forwarded to the State for its comments. On November 3, 2009, the State presented its final comments.
III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Petitioners
8. As background information, the petitioners state that their contentions are framed by a context of aggression against health service workers in Colombia. In their submissions, the petitioners made claims regarding three situations: an attack on the victim, and threats made against her; the alleged noncompliance with a protective remedy intended to safeguard her right to security and employment; and her subsequent displacement and its consequences.
9. They claim that at the time of the incidents, there was a pattern of failing to respect the special protection afforded the medical profession and the rights of health sector workers. They state, for example, that in September 2001, the management of the María Inmaculada Hospital in Florencia, department of Caquetá, reported threats against four of its employees, including Aranzazu Meneses de Jiménez.[2] They also maintain that their claim showcases the impact of forced displacement, particularly on women.
10. First of all, the petitioners note that between 1998 and 2002, a demilitarized zone (zona de distensión) was established, which hosted the peace talks between the Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). It comprised the municipalities of La Macarena, Mesetas, Uribe, and Vista Hermosa in the department of Meta, and the municipality of San Vicente del Caguán (headquarters for the talks) in the department of Caquetá.
11. The petitioners report that on August 1, 1994, Aranzazu Meneses de Jiménez assumed her position as General Services Operator at the María Inmaculada Hospital in Florencia, Caquetá department. The state that following the murder of her husband Alirio Chavarro Reyes on January 18, 2001, allegedly at the hands of paramilitary groups for “ideological and political [reasons] in the context of the internal armed conflict”[3] the alleged victim became the breadwinner for her family of three children.[4]
12. The petitioners claim that at 10:30 AM on August 6, 2001, Aranzazu Meneses was spoken to at the María Inmaculada Hospital by an unidentified man who said that he knew her because he had been a patient at that hospital. After finishing her day’s work, Aranzazu Meneses was on her way home when she was accosted by the same man who, armed with a revolver, forced her into a taxi. She was then taken to another area of the city where another unidentified man was waiting for her, and who attempted to kill her by discharging a firearm at her.[5]
13. They report that Aranzazu Meneses received immediate attention at the María Inmaculada Hospital and that later, the facility manager provided her with a security detail comprising members of the security forces; because of the repeated death threats against her and her family, however, she was forced to leave Florencia.
14. The petitioners claim that on August 24, 2001, Aranzazu Meneses asked the María Inmaculada Hospital for a transfer to Bogotá “in order to continue discharging all her duties” and in that way deal with the dangers she was facing. They also claim that in a letter dated September 3, 2001, Aranzazu Meneses asked the hospital’s personnel chief for one month’s unpaid leave of absence on account of the present danger to her life. They report that by means of a communication dated September 17, 2001, the hospital’s manager denied her request for a transfer, on the grounds that “granting the request does not depend on the will of the hospital administrators, since it is a national transfer; for that reason, this manager’s office contacted the Ministry of Health […] for it to intervene and provide the appropriate protection and assistance.” They state that as a result of that refusal, the alleged victim had to request three months’ unpaid leave of absence.
15. They report that in a letter dated September 27, 2001, Aranzazu Meneses again contacted the hospital’s management, since the three-month leave of absence was about to end; she asked them to consider extending her unpaid leave or to grant her leave of absence with pay on account of her status as a threatened person. In addition, by means of a letter dated October 5, 2001, the alleged victim asked the Ministry of Health to give a prompt response to the hospital’s request for intervention, given the imminence of attacks by armed groups and the fear she had for her life. In reply the Ministry of Health said that, “it does not fall to the Ministry to resolve this case, since state social companies, in exercise of their administrative powers, should resolve the employment situations of its employees and in some way seek to resolve situations that arise in the discharge of their duties that could threaten their lives.”
16. The petitioners state that the Ministry of the Interior and Justice included Aranzazu Meneses in the Special Comprehensive Protection Program for Leaders, Members, and Survivors of the Patriotic Union and of the Colombian Communist Party, on account of her position as a member, and, in that context, she was given humanitarian assistance equal to a million pesos a month for a period of three months. They claim, however, that neither the departmental authorities or the Social Solidarity Network responded to the alleged victim’s requests for protection for her life and person. As for criminal investigations, the petitioners claim that no serious and impartial investigation has been conducted.
17. In second place, they state that on October 31, 2001, Aranzazu Meneses filed a protection suit to safeguard her right to physical integrity by relocating her job to another area of the country; this filing was admitted, once a procedural defect had been resolved, on December 6, 2001. At the same time, they claim, by means of a letter dated November 29, 2001, the board of the National Trade Union Association of Health, Social Security, and Complementary Services Workers and Public Servants of Colombia (ANTHOC) contacted the María Inmaculada Hospital in Florencia to request a paid one-month union placement for Aranzazu Meneses, at that time displaced in Bogotá, to pursue a training course. They report that this request was denied by the hospital which, in a communication dated December 5, 2001, informed Aranzazu Meneses that since her unpaid leave of absence had come to an end, it was recommending that “she return immediately to her work, otherwise she would be deemed to have abandoned her post.” The hospital management also said that “this administration does not have the power to relocate personnel in other departments [and] it cannot authorize union placements, as had been requested by the board of ANTHOC, since she was not a union leader.”
18. The petitioners claim that on December 10, 2001, the director of the Caquetá Departmental Health Institute wrote to the alleged victim, informing her of a vacancy at the San Rafael Hospital in San Vicente del Caguán (in the former demilitarized zone), department of Caquetá. They report that the alleged victim turned down the vacancy because it was located in an area of “high social and armed conflict” and thus did not represent a solution for her security situation. As an indicator of the high levels of risk in those areas, they note that at that time leaflets were being distributed, purportedly signed by the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), indicating the need to, inter alia, “clean up” health facilities in the demilitarized zone.[6]
19. On December 14, 2001, the Second Labor Court of the Florencia Circuit in Caquetá resolved to protect the right to life and right to work of Aranzazu Meneses and ordered the manager of the María Inmaculada Hospital “within the following 48 hours […] to authorize and order [the] transfer and relocation of the worker […], a decision that will effectively safeguard protection of her right to work and right to life.” It also ordered the Director of the Caquetá Departmental Health Institute, the Ministry of Health, and the Interior Ministry’s General Human Rights Division to “proceed to locate the resources, provide all necessary assistance and coordination with the manager of the María Inmaculada Hospital, and order the transfer and relocation of […] Aranzazu Meneses de Jiménez, and to effectively provide the complainant with protection and resources as a threatened, displaced person, in order to safeguard her life and her work.”