Washington, D.C., June 6, 2016
Alejandro Ordóñez
Inspector-General of Colombia
Inspector-General’s Office of Colombia
Bogotá, D.C. - COLOMBIA
Dear Inspector-General Ordóñez,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the investigation conducted by your office into prison visits carried out by Senator Ivan Cepeda Castro in 2012 and 2013 as a member of the Human Rights Commission of the Colombian Congress.
As you are aware, several former paramilitaries asked to speak with then Congressman Cepeda during his visits to share information with him about alleged links between former President Alvaro Uribe and paramilitary groups. As a result of these meetings, your office opened an investigation into now Senator Cepeda in August 2013. In your decision on October 19, 2015, —called “Assessment of the Disciplinary Investigation"— you concluded, as Human Rights Watch had argued in a public letter we sent you in 2013,[1] that the meetings alone do not constitute a disciplinary offense under Colombian law.[2] However, in that same decision you decided to refocus the scope of the investigation and brought charges against Senator Cepeda, accusing him of offering benefits to two former paramilitary prisoners in exchange for making false statements against former President Uribe.
The only source for these accusations is the statements of these two paramilitaries. Due to the contradictions between these two statements and Senator Cepeda’s own version, you acknowledged that "it could be considered that there existed reasonable doubt" in favor of Senator Cepeda.[3] Nevertheless, you relied on three so-called "serious indications" in order to dismiss this doubt and formulate charges against Senator Cepeda. Specifically, the “serious indications” you invoked are the following:
• Senator Cepeda would have had the "opportunity" to ask the two former paramilitaries to make false statements because he met with them under "circumstances that facilitate confidentiality"[4];
• Senator Cepeda would have had the "willingness" to provide benefits to the paramilitaries in exchange for making false statements against former President Uribe because he is a "public and political enemy" of former President Uribe and it is "concordant that a political and public enemy will seek ways to harm [his enemy] "[5]; and
• Finally, Senator Cepeda would have had the "purpose" of committing this offense because, in the past, "he devoted a great part of his time to recording interviews in which accusations against Uribe were made."[6]
On the basis of these three unrelated hypotheses —that rely on the lack of ideological sympathy of Senator Cepeda with former President Uribe, private meetings, and the fact that Senator Cepeda has devoted much time to the investigation of human rights violations during President Uribe’s administration— you concluded that there existed sufficient evidence to eliminate any “reasonable doubt" regarding the responsibility of Cepeda, as required by Colombian law.[7] Under the Colombian Disciplinary Code, which your office applies, Senator Cepeda —if found guilty— would be punished with suspension from his office for a period of up to one year.[8]
In the opinion of Human Rights Watch, your conclusion regarding Senator Cepeda’s responsibility is unfounded, and the imposition of any suspension in relation to his visits following your procedure would constitute a violation of his political rights.
The American Convention on Human Rights, to which Colombia is a party, states that political rights can be regulated "only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings."[9] That your process and decision would violate this provision has been affirmed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Recently, in considering a petition from former Bogota Mayor Mr. Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego against a decision by your office allowing for his dismissal and disqualification as Mayor, the Commission held “that the application of a disciplinary sanction adopted by an administrative authority could affect the exercise of the political rights of Mr. Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego, who was elected by popular vote.” [10] It also noted that it “could cause a side effect in the right of the persons who voted for [him]”. The Commission concluded by issuing precautionary measures against the imposition of the sanction. In doing so, it emphasized the importance of protecting political rights “in situations involving civil servants, elected by popular vote, in virtue of their importance to the democratic system and given the need for the parameters enshrined in the American Convention to be respected in any process leading to the removal, disqualification or dismissal of said employees.”
Therefore, Human Rights Watch believes it is clear that the sanctions which Inspector-General’s Office imposes do not meet regional standards of human rights.
Based on the lack of evidence against Senator Cepeda and the inconsistency of the procedure brought forth by your office and regional human rights standards, I respectfully urge your office to close the disciplinary investigation against Senator Cepeda.
Sincerely,
José Miguel Vivanco
Americas Director
Human Rights Watch
[1] Human Rights Watch, “Letter to Inspector General of Colombia”, December 11, 2013, https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/12/11/letter-inspector-general-colombia.
[2] Inspector-General’s Office of Colombia, Assessment of the Disciplinary Investigation, case 2013-87096, October 19, 2015, page 12. Copy on file with Human Rights Watch.
[3] Assessment of the Disciplinary Investigation, page 82.
[4] Assessment of the Disciplinary Investigation, page 77.
[5] Assessment of the Disciplinary Investigation, page 79.
[6] Assessment of the Disciplinary Investigation, page 79.
[7] Disciplinary Code, Law 734 of 2002, art. 9 (“During the [disciplinary] proceeding, every reasonable doubt will be solved in favor of the person under investigation”).
[8] Disciplinary Code, Law 734 of 2002, art. 44(2).
[9] American Convention on Human Rights, art. 23(2).
[10] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 5/2014, Matter Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego concerning Colombia Precautionary Measures N.374-13, March 18, 2014, http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/pdf/2014/MC374-13-En.pdf (accessed May 24, 2016).
