REPORT Nº 75/01 CASE 12.266 EL ARO, ITUANGO COLOMBIA October 10, 2001 I. SUMMARY 1. On March 3, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) received a petition submitted by the Grupo Interdisciplinario por los Derechos Humanos (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging that from October 22 to November 12, 1997, members of groups operating outside the law known as “paramilitary groups” executed Arnulfo Sánchez, José Darío Martínez, Olcris Fail Díaz, Wilmar Restrepo (a minor), Omar Ortiz, Fabio Antonio Zulueta, Otoniel de Jesús Tejada Tejada, Omar Iván Gutiérrez, Guillermo Andrés Mendoza, Nelson Palacio Cárdenas, Luis Modesto Múnera, Marco Aurelio Areiza, Rosa Barrera, Dora Luz Areiza, and Alberto Correa (hereinafter “the victims”) with the tolerance of state agents, during a pre-announced armed incursion in the district (Corregimiento) of El Aro, municipality of Ituango, department of Antioquia, Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the State” or “the Colombian State”). The petitioners allege that these acts were carried out with the tolerance or acquiescence of state agents. 2. The petitioners alleges that the State is responsible for violating the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, protection of the family, and property, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, and 21, as well as the general obligation to ensure the enjoyment of the human rights protected in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) to the detriment of the victims. The State asked the Commission to declare the claim inadmissible for failure to meet the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, established in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. In this respect, the petitioners alleged that the claim should be considered to fall within the exception provided for at Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention, and that the Commission was therefore competent to examine it. 3. Based on the analysis of the parties’ positions, the Commission concluded that it is competent to take cognizance of the claim submitted by the petitioners, and that the case is admissible under Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4. On April 11, 2000, the Commission proceeded to process the petition as number 12.226, and to forward the pertinent parts to the Colombian State, giving it 90 days to submit information. 5. The State presented its response on July 14, 2000, and the pertinent parts were forwarded to the petitioners for observations. On October 12, 2000, the petitioners submitted additional information; it was forwarded to the State, which was given 30 days to respond. On December 6, 2000, the State submitted its observations. On February 26, 2001, during its 110th session, the Commission held a hearing on the merits with the participation of both parties. On August 26, 2001, the petitioners submitted additional information. On October 2, 2001, the State submitted its observations. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners’ position 6. The petitioners allege that from June 1996 to February 1997, the civilian population of the municipality of Ituango, in the department of Antioquia, suffered a series of grave acts of violence by paramilitary groups belonging to the Autodefensas de Córdoba y Urabá (AUC), at that time led by Carlos Castaño Gil. The petition indicates that the AUC announced its intent to carry out an incursion and that these threats were duly made known to the authorities. They 1