- 12 -
28.
In its second preliminary objection, the State reiterated the previous arguments
and alleged that the Court does not have jurisdiction to examine several facts, alleged
violations, individualized presumed victims, and requests for reparation – introduced
by the Commission and the representatives to illustrate this pattern – that, in its
opinion, correspond to case 11,227 and that have not been properly submitted to the
Court in a contentious case. Consequently, the State affirmed that, in the instant case,
there is a sort of “partial concurrence” with what has been requested in case 11,227,
because an attempt is being made to subsume case 11,227 in this case. Although it
accepted that the Court could use some of those facts as context (the ones related to
the situation that existed at the time of the murder), the State considered that they
could not give rise to legal consequences in relation to its international responsibility,
and that some of the alleged facts bear no relationship to Senator Cepeda’s death.
29.
The Commission alleged that it had not prejudged the facts of case 11,227, but
merely gathered data from different sources (national and international organizations),
to illustrate that the execution of Manuel Cepeda Vargas took place in a specific
context, which was related to the merits of the case. It argued that the fact that it had
analyzed this context in a way that the State disagreed with should not be understood
as an attack on legal certainty that could invalidate the proceedings. It stated that, by
not making a new ruling on the admissibility of the Cepeda case, the Commission
acted in exercise of its authority under the Convention, and its Statute and Rules of
Procedure. Hence, it considered that the State’s right to defense had not been violated
because, after the case had been detached, the parties were able to present their
arguments in writing and during the hearing. In this regard, the Commission indicated
that, when deciding to separate the cases, it took into account the specific interest of
the presumed victims who wanted to advance their case without continuing the
friendly settlement procedure. Regarding the second objection, the Commission
clarified that the facts included as background information are not the facts, rights,
victims or reparations of case 11,227, but rather the context in which the murder of
Senator Manuel Cepeda occurred, and referring to them does not entail prejudging
case 11,227, because no arguments or requests for reparation have been made in
relation to persons other than Senator Cepeda Vargas and his family. In any case, it
alleged, the State’s argument would have the “unfortunate consequence” of precluding
the Court from examining future cases that concerned violations originating within the
same historical contexts.
30.
The representatives considered that there were no grounds for controlling the
legality of the Commission’s action, because the State had been accorded several
opportunities to contest the facts of the case. They noted that the Commission did not
“surprise” the State with the inclusion of the context of generalized and systematic
violence against the UP in this case, because this “was a fundamental element of the
petitioners’ allegations since the case was opened as an individual case with its own
procedures.” Moreover, they considered that the arguments relating to the
prejudgment of case 11,227 were “irreceivable and without grounds,” bearing in mind
that the Court is not examining that case and does not have jurisdiction over it. They
clarified that they are not trying to assess the State’s responsibility for the said pattern
of violence against the UP, because that is beyond the scope of this case; however,
they did ask that the extrajudicial execution of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas be
examined in light of that context.
31.
When the actions of the Commission in relation to the proceedings before it are
alleged as a preliminary objection, the Court has affirmed that the Inter-American