REPORT No. 104/11 PETITION 12.336 ADMISSIBILITY ELIO GELVES CARRILLO ET AL. 1 COLOMBIA July 22, 2011 I. SUMMARY 1. On March 2, 1999 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition submitted by Humanidad Vigente – Corporación Jurídica (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging responsibility on the part of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the State” or “the Colombian State”) for the extrajudicial execution of Elio Gelves Carrillo, a 17-year old adolescent (hereinafter “the alleged victim”) allegedly carried out by agents of the State on May 27, 1997 in the municipality of Fortul, Arauca Department, as well as the failure to conduct an effective investigation in the ordinary jurisdiction with a view to the prosecution and punishment of those responsible. 2. The petitioners alleged that the State is responsible for violating the rights to life, personal integrity, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”), all consistent with the general obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1.1 thereof. They maintained that the petition is admissible based on the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in accordance with Article 46.2. a) and b) of the American Convention in that the military criminal jurisdiction does not represent a suitable venue. For its part, the State alleged that the petition is inadmissible given that the subject matter has been dully decided at the domestic level and the Commission cannot act as a fourth instance for review of established findings. 3. After examining the positions of the parties in the light of the admissibility requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, the Commission concludes that it is competent to hear the complaint and that the complaint is admissible based on the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victim and the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 thereof, to the detriment of the victim’s relatives, all as they relate to Article 1.1 of the Convention. In addition, pursuant to the principle of iura novit curia the Commission considers admissible the possible violation of Article 19 of the American Convention to the detriment of the alleged victim and Article 5, to the detriment of his relatives, all as they relate to Article 1.1 of the Convention. Accordingly, it decides to inform the parties of the report, to order its publication and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 4. The IACHR recorded the complaint under No. 12.336 and after a preliminary analysis it proceeded on October 26, 2000 to forward it to the Colombian State for its observations. On November 6, 2000 the petitioners submitted additional information that was forwarded to the State for its observations. 5. On February 9, 2001 the State submitted its response, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their observations. On March 16, 2001 the petitioners submitted their response, which was forwarded to the State for its observations. On May 23, 2001 the State asked for a 15-day extension, which was granted by the Commission. On June 6, 2001 the State submitted its response, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their observations. 1 As provided in Article 17.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Rodrigo Escobar Gil, a Colombian national, did not participate in the discussion or decision regarding this petition. 1