156. The Court has established previously that it is legitimate to use circumstantial
evidence, indications and presumptions to found a judgment, “provided that, from them, it
is possible to infer conclusions that are consistent with the facts.” 168 In addition, the Court
recalls the criteria applicable to the assessment of evidence. Ever since its first contentious
case, it has indicated that, for an international court, these criteria are less rigid than under
domestic legal systems and has maintained that it is able to assess the evidence freely. The
Court must apply an assessment of the evidence that takes into account the gravity of the
attribution of international responsibility to a State and that, despite this, is able to create
the conviction about the truth of the facts alleged. 169 The Court has also established criteria
for the burden of proof and has emphasized that, in proceedings concerning human rights
violations, the State’s defense cannot be based on the impossibility of the complainant to
provide evidence, when it is the State that controls the means to clarify facts that have
taken place on its territory.170
C.1.a) Regarding the evidence to consider proved the threats and harassment
157.
With regard to the evidence that this Court assessed in order to find the threats
and harassment proved, in addition to the testimony that the direct victims of these events
gave at the domestic level before the 243rd Prosecutor’s Office in 1997, and before the
Attorney General’s Office in 1998, and the statements provided before notary public in
2005, Mr. Vélez and Mrs. Román testified before this Court at the public hearing. Both the
statements assessed previously by the Commission and those they gave before this Court,
are consistent and coincide with the facts that the Court has considered proved (supra
paras. 84 to 94).
158. The Court has other probative elements that support the content of these
statements, consisting of statements or briefs from individuals or institutions that knew or
had contact with Mr. Vélez at the time of the facts and to whom he commented on or
informed of the threats and harassments that he and his family were experiencing. In this
regard, there is a letter sent to the Attorney General’s Office on September 11, 1996, by
the Editor-in-Chief of Noticiero Colombia 12:30 (supra para. 86). Also, the body of evidence
includes the testimony given on October 17, 1997, by a colleague of Mr. Vélez, who stated,
before the Attorney General’s Office, that “when [Mr. Velez] arrived at the news office, he
recounted that he was receiving threatening telephone calls” and that “they told him that
hypocrites are crushed to death (supra para. 93). In addition, it has been verified that, at
the time of the facts, Mr. Velez went to the Colombian Commission of Jurists in order to
seek legal counsel in view of the situation.171 That organization, in turn, sent letters dated
September 29, 1997, to the Attorney General’s Office and to the Human Rights Council of
the Presidency of the Republic, informing the said entities of the Vélez Roman family’s
situation (supra paras. 90 and 91).
168
Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 130, and Case of González Medina and family
members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 134.
169
Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 127 to 129, and Case of González Medina and
family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 132.
170
Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 135 and 136, and Case of González Medina
and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 132.
Similarly, see the decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, such as, Eduardo Bleier v. Uruguay, CCPR/C/15/D/30/1978, Communication No. 30/1978, 29
March 1982, para. 13.3, and Héctor Alfredo Romero v. Uruguay, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/39/40) in 159 (1984),
Communication No. 85/1981, 22 July 1983, para. 12.3.
171
Cf. statement made on November 26, 2009, by Raúl Hernández Rodríguez before the Judicial Police,
Prosecutor General’s Office (file of the processing of the case before the Commission, tome II, folios 912-913).
48