transferred to the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General (Fiscalía
General) and assigned the number UDH-525. It notes that on June 1, 1999, an arrest warrant
was issued for Carlos Castaño Gil and Francisco Villalba Hernández for multiple homicide
(homicidio en concurso). On July 4, 1999, Carlos Castaño was declared to be in absentia.
Later, it was ordered that the investigation also look into the conduct of Salvatore Mancuso
Gómez, Alexander Mecado Fonseca, and Héctor Darío Gallego Meza. On September 10, 2001,
the prosecutor handed down an indictment as partners in the crimes of conspiracy to commit
multiple homicide (el delito de concierto para delinquir en concurso con homicidio). 4 The State
also made reference to a disciplinary proceeding being pursued by the Office of the Delegate
Procurator for Human Rights (Procuraduría Delegada para los Derechos Humanos) for
omissions of public officials in arresting the persons responsible for the El Aro massacre. In its
communications of November 5, 2000, and October 2, 2001, the State considered these
procedural steps to represent a significant advance in the investigation. 5 Later, in the hearing
held during the 110th session of the IACHR, it acknowledged that for security reasons the
judicial authorities have faced difficulties traveling to the area to take the next steps in the
investigation. 6
20. The State alleges that the petitioners’ claim does not meet the requirement of prior
exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for at Article 46(1) of the American Convention. It
notes that the delay to which the petitioners refer is justified in light of the standards
established in the case-law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, particularly the
complexity of the situation in the zone in question. It argues, accordingly, that the claim
should be declared inadmissible.
21. In addition, it should be noted that in its communication of July 11, 2000, the State offers
a series of considerations regarding the application, inter alia, of Article 47(b) of the American
Convention, which establishes that the petitions that substantially reproduce a prior petition
already examined by the Commission or another international organization should be declared
inadmissible. In this context, it argues that petition 12,266 “... would appear to merge” with
the claim of case 12.050, related to the events of 1996 in La Granja, a locality also situated in
the municipality of Ituango.
IV.
ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY
A.
Competence
22. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge
complaints with the Commission. The petition states as alleged victims individuals with respect
to whom Colombia undertook to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American
Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Colombia has been a state party
to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, the date it deposited the respective
instrument of ratification. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione personae to
examine the petition.
23. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition insofar as it alleges
violations of rights protected in the American Convention in the territory of a state party to
that treaty. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and
ensure the rights protected in the Convention had already entered into force for the State on
the date on which the facts stated in the petition are alleged to have occurred. Finally, the
Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human
rights protected by the American Convention.
4 Note EE 36301 of the General Office for Special Matters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia,
October 2, 2001.
5 Note EE 2841 from the Vice-Minister for Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
November 5, 2000, and Note EE 36301 of the General Office for Special Matters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia, October 2, 2001.
6 Hearing held during the 110th regular session of the IACHR, February 26, 2001.
4