the delivery of this Judgment, together with its dissemination in different media, both a
national newspaper with widespread circulation and two official ones, are sufficient and
adequate measure of reparations to make reparation for the violations suffered by the
victims and to comply with the purpose indicated by the representative.263
C.2) “Measures of educational rehabilitation”
287. Regarding the representative’s request that a sum of money be allocated to cover
the cost of courses so that Mr. Vélez Restrepo and Mrs. Román Amariles can to improve
their “professional and social profile in the [United] States,”264 the Court considers that the
compensation granted for non-pecuniary damage is sufficient and adequate to redress the
violations suffered by the victims and does not find it necessary to order this measure.
C.3) To continue adopting and strengthening special programs to protect
journalists at risk and investigate crimes against them
288. Both the Commission and the representative requested that the State be ordered “to
continue adopting and strengthening the special programs to protect journalists at risk and
investigate crimes against them.” In its submission brief, the Commission clarified that the
State had expressed “its absolute commitment” to this recommendation. The Commission
indicated that Colombia had “described the activities, results and budget of the Protection
Program of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice and advised that the Human Rights Unit
of the Prosecutor General’s Office has a working group of 19 special prosecutors in charge of
investigating crimes against journalists.” In this regard, the Commission considered that the
information provided by the State “may reveal important steps in the compliance with this
recommendation, […] which must continue to be enhanced and strengthened.” Therefore,
the Commission underscored the relevance of this type of program, and considered it
important that the Court “take into consideration the State’s efforts [���] to protect
journalists at risk.”
289. For its part, the State argued that this measure should be considered unfounded,
because the State has already been complying with it, which “proves the State’s political will
and good faith to comply with it, and the specific results of the measures implemented to
date.” Consequently, it asked the Court to reject the request to order this measure.
290. The Court observes that the State presented specific information on programs and
actions implemented in this area,265 and the Commission did not contest their existence or
263
Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 359,
and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 156.
264
They indicated that they wished “to take intensive English courses,” and “to enroll in professional training
classes” of “film camerography” and “computer systems and technology,” respectively. The representative
requested the sum of US$20,000 to cover the cost of these courses.
265
The State provided information on: (i) the existence of an “broad legal framework designed to guarantee
[…] freedom of opinion and expression” in Colombia; (ii) the creation, in 1997, of a program to protect the rights of
groups that were vulnerable owing to the exercise of their political, public, social and humanitarian activities or
functions; (iii) the creation, in 2000, of the Protection Program that includes journalists and social communicators
in its target population, and through which specific measures of prevention and protection have been implemented;
(iv) the benefits and progress reported by this program in the protection and safety conditions of journalists, which
is revealed by the increase in the number of beneficiaries of the said program and a decrease in the crimes of
murder against them, and (v) the progress in the fight against impunity in relation to crimes against journalists
and communicators, such as “the aggravation of the conduct and the increase in the punishment when attacks are
made against individuals belonging to special groups, such as journalists,“ and that “attached to the Human Rights
Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office is a working group in charge of conducting the investigations into crimes
against journalists composed of 19 special prosecutors.” Cf. Note DIDHD/GOI No.10500/0485 of February 22, 2011
82