7
illegal activity, nor intelligence gathering, but rather a legal obligation
emanating from the law which the DAS [was] in charge of enforcing.”
b)
In relation to the alleged accusations and smear campaigns against
members of the ICJP, the State expressed that it has been respectful of the
work that organizations like the ICJP carry out as defenders of human rights.
In that regard, the State referred in particular to several pronouncements in
which “the High Government” has recognized “the legitimate work of human
rights defenders and of organizations to which these individuals belong.”
Likewise, the “National Government” has expressed “its absolute rejection in
cases of threats or theft directed at NGO defenders of [h]uman [r]ights.”
Thus, the State indicated that “the fact that the government has shown itself
on occasion to be in disagreement with the NGO does not mean that it is
attempting to delegitimize them, discredit their work, or stigmatize them,”
since “political contradiction[s] [are] [the hallmark] of a democracy.”
Similarly, the State said that, “the National Government is not supporting or
fomenting a media campaign in order to denounce human rights defenders,”
because “if there have been private claims aimed at inculpating or accusing
members of the [ICJP], [t]hese have been neither promoted nor sponsored by
the National Government.” The State clarified that the criminal law considers
defamation to be an actionable offense for which “anyone who feels his or her
honor or good name affected may advance the respective legal action.” In
the same vein, the State specified that by virtue of the right to freedom of
expression and freedom of information, the State “cannot take any action
tending to preemptively censure persons [who] take to the media and other
public fora in order to be heard,” since proceeding in this way “would violate
not only fundamental rights recognized in the Political Constitution, but would
also incur eventual international responsibility.” Despite this, the State
remarked that this fact should not be interpreted to mean that the State
agrees with the content of such protests;
c)
As regarding the alleged corrupt proceedings and framing of various
ICJP members, the State made it known that in Colombia, judges are subject
to the dominion of the Constitution and the law, and that as a result “they are
free to make decisions that adhere to the law and the available evidence. In
a case where those under investigation by the authorities had their
fundamental right to due process violated, the juridical order […] offers legal
tools to condemn this conduct such that one can then assess the procedure
adopted by an authority within the judicial process”;
d)
Concerning the alleged threats and attempts against the right to
humane treatment of various ICJP members, the State argued that “it is
proven that […] [the State] has paid close attention to each and every one of
the necessities and requirements that the ICJP members’ security and
protection demanded.” Specifically, the State indicated that:
i) “in various regions, special coordination efforts have been made
with the Armed Forces to the effect that [their] members […] may
carry out the work of human rights defense in the field,” and that
“over the course of the validity of the [...] precautionary measures
[...] the Army has opened appropriate lines of communication with
the beneficiaries, with the goal of tracking the risks they face and
achieving agreement as to their protection needs”;