| |
1. The author of the
communication is A. A. G., a Colombian citizen, residing in Florida with his
extended family. He claims that they are victims of violations by Colombia
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. No articles are
specifically invoked, but it would appear that articles 6 paragraph 1; 9
paragraph 1; 12; 17, and 23 paragraph 1, of the Covenant are at issue.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1 The author states that on 28 April 1994, at 06:15 am, he and his family
were forced to leave Bogota, Colombia for the United States. The author had
been a witness in a trial where he had been testifying under terms of a
special legislation for Protection of Witnesses. Thus, his identity as a
witness should have been concealed from the public. However, his identity
was revealed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, [FN1] in violation of said
legislation, thereby allegedly placing the author’s life and that of his
family at risk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] The author received a telegramme with his full name and the details of
the trial in which he was a witness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 The author claims that he and his family left Bogota under the
protection of the said legislation and with a commitment, from the Colombian
authorities, to provide means of subsistence for him and his family in the
United States. He claims that he has received no economic support from the
authorities in spite of repeated requests to this end, both through the
Colombian Consulate in Miami and through direct requests to the Prosecutor’s
Office. He has sent letters to various authorities in Colombia, including
the Ombudsman (Procuraduria para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos), the
President of the Republic, etc.
2.3 The author notes that the replies he has received state that he chose to
leave Colombia voluntarily and if he wishes to qualify for assistance under
the Protection of Witnesses Act, he must return to Colombia. He claims that
the replies are simply a cover up by the authorities, who failed in their
obligation to keep his identity secret.
2.4 The author states that the authorities, far from carrying out a diligent
investigation into the incident, have done everything possible to cover it
up. No officers from the office that revealed his identity have been
disciplined. The complaint
3. The author contends that the events described entail violations of his
rights under the Covenant, namely his rights to life, to security of person,
and to family life. The author also invokes the right to work, because he
has had to leave behind his business.
The State party’s observations and the author’s reply
4.1 By submission of 14 November 1996, the State party argues that the
communication should be declared inadmissible, for non exhaustion of
domestic remedies.
4.2 The State party concedes that the author was the primary witness in an
extortion and kidnapping case in his home town of Ibague. However, it states
that under Resolution No. 0-663 of 1993 Programme for the Protection of
Witness, the author had to accept the terms of the Protection Programme,
requiring internal relocation within Colombia, before being eligible for
relocation out of the country. The State party affirms that the author
refused the internal relocation and consequently could not be relocated to
the United States at the expense of the Colombian authorities. It further
affirms that it was the author’s spontaneous decision to travel abroad, that
he only requested help in obtaining entry visas for the United States and a
ticket for himself. It affirms that it never informed the USA embassy in
Bogota that the author would be travelling at the request and expense of the
Prosecutors Office (Oficina de Proteccion de Asistencia a victimas y
testigos). It further informs the Committee that it has documents (Acta de
Compromiso) [FN2] whereby the author only accepted protection from the
authorities from the town of Ibague, as well as help in obtaining entry
visas to the USA and a ticket for himself. A further letter from the author
to the Public Prosecutor (Fiscal General) in which he requests tickets for
himself and his family and expresses the hope that he will receive support
from his family members in the United States, is said to support the State
party’s contention that the author did not expect his expenses to be borne
by the Protection Programme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] The State party has not submitted copy of the supporting documents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 With respect to the allegation that the State party failed to guarantee
the author’s safety and life by divulging his identity, it is contended that
the document where the author’s identity was divulged is only an internal
one, consequently, there was no risk to his life. The State party contends
that it is the author himself with his series of complaints to national and
international organisms who has put his own life at risk, by failing to
exercise due caution. The internal investigation further showed that
revealing the author’s identity out him at no risk anyway, as he had already
been threatened by the time his identity was divulged. Accordingly, the
State party states that the investigation was closed.
5. By letter of 10 October 1997, the author informs the Committee that the
State Council (Consejo de Estado) on 26 February 1997 revoked the judgement
of 11 December 1996 issued by the Administrative Tribunal of Cundinamarca
(Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo de Cundinamarca, Sección Primera)
denying him financial assistance. The State Council (Consejo de Estado)
ordered he be paid maintenance in the United States as well as travel
expenses. He initiated actions for the implementation of the judgement. On
11 June 1997, the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Procuraduria Delegada para la
Vigilancia Judicial) informed him that instructions to that effect had been
issued. However, on 17 July 1997, the Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal de
lo Contencioso Administrativo de Cundinamarca, Sección Primera) had to order
the Public Prosecutors Office to pay him. On 22 July 1997, the Office of the
Programme of Protection and Assistance contacted him through the Colombian
Consulate in Miami, to transfer the first payment and informed him of the
procedure to be followed for the next payments and requested a meeting with
him. The author reiterates that he was not received the maintenance accorded
him by the Courts.
6. In a further submission, dated 15 October 1997, the State party informs
the Committee of the above and points out that it has requested the
Constitutional Court to review the case, since the judgment did not, in the
Prosecutor’s Office opinion, expressly indicate which fundamental rights had
been violated. Consequently, it contends that domestic remedies have not
been exhausted. Furthermore it claims that the author has failed to inform
the State party, through the Colombian Consulate in Miami, of where he
wishes to be paid, making it is impossible for it to comply with the
decision of the State Council (Consejo de Estado). It is contended that the
author sent this information to his lawyer in Bogota who according to the
State party had failed to furnish it.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human
Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules or procedure,
decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the
Covenant.
7.2 The Committee has taken note of the State party’s request that the
communication be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic
remedies.
7.3 With respect to the author’s allegation that his right to life has been
violated the Committee notes that he has initiated several actions in order
to clarify the responsibilities in respect of the divulgation of his
identity, which allegedly forced him to flee the country. The Committee
considers that in the circumstances of the case, it must be concluded that
the author has diligently pursued remedies aimed at identifying and
clarifying his situation. More than three years after the events at the
basis of the present communication, those responsible for the incident have
not been identified, nor disciplined. The Committee concludes that in the
circumstances, domestic remedies have been ‘unreasonably prolonged’ within
the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.
7.4 With respect to the author’s allegations, under articles 6, paragraph 1;
9 paragraph 1; 12; 17 and 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee
considers that they have been sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of
admissibility; they should accordingly be considered on their merits.
8. The Committee therefore decides:
(a) that the communication is admissible;
(b) that, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional
Protocol, the State party shall be requested to submit to the Committee
within six months of the date of transmittal to it of this decision, written
explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the measures, if any,
that may have been taken by it;
(c) that any explanations or statements received from the State party shall
be communicated by the Secretary-General under rule 93, paragraph 3, of the
rules of procedure to the author, with the request that any comments which
she may wish to make should reach the Human Rights Committee, in care of the
Centre for Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within six weeks
of the date of the transmittal;
(d) that this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the
author.
_________________________
All persons handling this document are requested to respect and observe its
confidential nature. |
|
