7. On May 11, 2000, the IACHR requested the State of Colombia to adopt measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the human rights defender Alirio Uribe Muñoz, a member of CCAJAR. On March 19, 2002, the Commission decided to broaden the precautionary measures to include all the other members of the Lawyers’ Collective. As of the date of adoption of this report, the measures remain in place. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 8. The petitioners alleged that the State is responsible for the attacks, acts of intimidation and harassment, and threats against the members of CCAJAR, a human rights organization, since the 1990s. According to the petitioners, those acts were carried out by State agents or private citizens acting with the support, acquiescence, or tolerance of public servants. They said that the State has failed to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the safety of the organization’s members. They added that Colombia had failed to take effective steps to prevent those acts from remaining in a state of impunity. The petitioners said that the situation alleged in their petition is framed by a context of generalized vulnerability of human rights defenders in Colombia, a fact attested by various national and international agencies. 9. The petitioners alleged that the State violated the rights to life and humane treatment of the members of CCAJAR. That is because its members have been victims of continual threats, attacks, surveillance, harassment, public defamation of their work, and public statements that heighten the level of risk in their activities. According to the petitioners, this systematic pattern of intimidation is the work of agents of the public security forces, members of state security agencies, and private individuals who have acted with the support, acquiescence, tolerance, and protection of public officials. The alleged acts identified by the petitioners included: (i) death threats by means of pamphlets, telephone calls, and packages with threatening notes; and (ii) surveillance and following by persons in automobiles or on motorcycles. 10. In addition, they allege that, in spite of the precautionary measures granted by the IACHR, the State has not adequately implemented protection measures to prevent the acts of harassment against the members of the Lawyers’ Collective. They said that the only elements that remain in place are the vehicles and bodyguard drivers. They explained that since the CCAJAR moved offices in 2012, no protection measures had been implemented at the offices or at homes of the Collective’s members, despite their having been agreed upon; and that the communication devices were no longer in place. 11. The petitioners held that the State had violated the freedom of movement and circulation of four of the members of CCAJAR,2 because of threats and attacks on them They said that those individuals had previously reported harassment, surveillance, threatening phone calls, and intimidation that were not properly investigated. They said that no investigation had advanced beyond the preliminary stage. The petitioners alleged that that right had also been violated to the detriment of Diana Teresa Sierra, who was prevented from leaving the country to take part in a conference. Likewise, they alleged that that right was violated to the detriment of Soraya Gutiérrez, who was forced to change her domicile at least twice and had to leave the country owing to acts of aggression against her. 12. They also argued that the situation undermined their freedom of association. The foregoing is due to the fact that the threats and harassment against the members of CCAJAR have prevented them from doing their work properly in defense of human rights and representing victims in domestic and international proceedings. 13. The petitioners also allege that Colombia violated the rights to privacy and access to information. That is because the Army of Colombia prepared a military intelligence report in which they collected personal information on the members of CCAJAR. They said that the report accused more than 200 civic and grassroots leaders, local councilors, mayors, and human rights defenders, including a CCAJAR representative, of being sympathizers or members of guerrilla groups. They added that the members of CCAJAR were also adversely 2 Luis Guillermo Pérez, Rafael Barrios Mendivil, Maret Cecilia García, and Miguel Puerto Barrera. 2

Select target paragraph3