Colombia
Coronavirus Response
On March 12, 2020, a Ministry of Health resolution declared a “health emergency” in the country until May 30 due to the coronavirus. It also prohibited large public gatherings, and ordered television and radio stations and all other mass media to disseminate information provided by the ministry. A subsequent presidential decree established mandatory, preventive isolation measures for 21 days, unless extended. And on March 28, 2020, Presidential Decree No. 491 increased the permissible time for the government to respond to freedom of information requests to 30 days. For additional details, read the report, “Pandemic and Executive Powers in Colombia: A Problem and a Modest Proposal,” and see ICNL’s COVID-19 Civic Freedom Tracker’s Colombia entry.
Update
Due to discontent with the current government, Colombians have been taking to the streets to demand change more frequently. This was clearest during the National Strike, which started on November 21, 2019 and was followed by seven days of protests and the rare enactment of a curfew on November 22. After those seven days, there were interspersed protests in December 2019 and January 2020 and a National Strike on January 21, 2020. Most recently, the National Strike Committee announced a national mobilization day on the streets planned for February 21, 2020, which was followed by another National Strike on March 25, 2020. In the wake of these protests, two draft bills that affect the right to protest have emerged. For further details, please see the Pending NGO Legislative / Regulatory Initiatives section, located under “Legal Snapshot” tack, below.
Introduction
Civil society organizations (CSOs) have played a vital role in public policy, development, and peace-building throughout Colombia’s history. In the past decades, CSOs have evolved in the context of, and directly in response to, the armed conflict that has defined Colombia’s political, social and economic landscape. As a result, Colombia has robust, sophisticated and capable CSOs, including human rights organizations, peace building entities, community-strengthening initiatives, women’s rights groups and academic and research centers. Most CSOs are part of alliances or networks.
The 1991 Constitution protects freedom of assembly and actively promotes CSOs. In addition, under the Colombian Constitution, international treaties and agreements that recognize human rights ratified by Congress have the status of Constitutional enactments and thus take precedence in the domestic legal order. Colombia has ratified almost all relevant human rights treaties.
However, Colombia has a complicated and often contradictory web of laws, regulations, and policies that make it difficult to understand the legal framework for CSOs. In addition, despite recent peace accords, the national landscape continues to be marked by threats, gender-based violence and lethal attacks against human rights defenders, which is impacting heavily on civil society. In Colombia, being a human rights defender is still a high-risk occupation.
| Organizational Forms | Nonprofit Corporations/Associations and Foundations |
| Registration Body | Public Registries of Chambers of Commerce |
| Approximate Number | Unknown |
| Barriers to Entry | Excessive discretion in registration process |
| Barriers to Activities | Subjective application of regulations by government institutions |
| Barriers to Speech and/or Advocacy | Harassment of human rights organizations |
| Barriers to International Contact | No legal barriers. Practical limits to criticism of government in international arena |
| Barriers to Resources | No legal barriers |
| Barriers to Assembly | The Police Code adopted in 2016 establishes vague regulations on obstruction of public roads and limits spontaneous demonstrations. |
| Population | 44,200,000 (November 2018 est.) |
| Capital | Bogota |
| Type of Government | Republic |
| Life Expectancy at Birth | Male: 72.8 years Female: 79.3 years (2017 est.) |
| Literacy Rate | Male: 94.1% Female: 94.4% |
| Religious Groups | Roman Catholic: 79%; Other: 21% |
| Ethnic Groups | Mestizo: 58%; White: 20%; Mulatto: 14%; mixed Black-Amerindian: 3%; Amerindian: 1% |
| GDP per capita | $14,500 (2017 est.) |
Source: The World Factbook. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2010.
| Ranking Body | Rank | Ranking Scale (best – worst possible) |
| UN Human Development Index | 90 (2018) | 1 – 186 |
| World Bank Rule of Law Index | 40 (2018) | 100 – 0 |
| World Bank Voice & Accountability Index | 49 (2018) | 100 – 0 |
| Transparency International | 96 (2020) | 1 – 185 |
| Freedom House: Freedom in the World | Status: Partly Free Political Rights: 3 Civil Liberties: 3 (2018) | Free/Partly Free/Not Free 1 – 7 1 – 7 |
| Foreign Policy: Fragile States Index | 65 (2020) | 177 – 1 |
International and Regional Human Rights Agreements
| Key International Agreements | Ratification* | Year |
| International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Yes | 1969 |
| Optional Protocol to ICCPR (ICCPR-OP1) | Yes | 1969 |
| International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) | Yes | 1969 |
| Optional Protocol to ICESCR (OP-ICESCR) | No | |
| International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) | Yes | 1981 |
| Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) | Yes | 1982 |
| Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women | Yes | 2007 |
| Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Yes | 1991 |
| International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICRMW) | Yes | 1995 |
| Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) | Yes | 2011 |
| Regional Treaties | ||
| American Convention on Human Rights | Yes | 1973 |
| Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador” | Yes | 1997 |
* Category includes ratification, accession, or succession to the treaty
Constitutional Framework
Despite its armed conflict, Colombia maintains a strong array of rule-of-law institutions. The 1991 constitution includes a comprehensive bill of rights, provisions securing the independence of the judiciary, and other checks and balances on executive power. Since 1991 the Constitutional Court has developed a progressive jurisprudence that affirms the rights of victims of human rights violations and protects individual liberties.
The 1991 Colombian Constitution also recognizes the role of CSOs and establishes that the state has the obligation to support them and to recognize them as legitimate actors in the policy process. Changes currently affecting CSOs in Colombia include their increasingly close links with the state, and difficulties arising from a relative lack of funds from sources promoting international co-operation.
The 1991 Constitution establishes freedom of association in general.
Article 38 guarantees the exercise of the freedom of association, providing that “The right of free association for the promotion of various activities that individuals pursue in society is guaranteed”. In addition, article 95 provides that “The following are duties of the individual and the citizen: … to defend and publicize human rights as a basis of peaceful coexistence…”
Article 20 of the Constitution provides that “Every individual is guaranteed the freedom to express and disseminate his/her thoughts and opinions, to transmit and receive information that is true and impartial, and to establish mass communications media”. In addition, according to article 37, “Any group of individuals may gather and demonstrate publicly and peacefully. The law alone may establish in a specific manner those cases in which the exercise of this right may be limited.”
Article 39 establishes that workers and employers have the right to form trade unions or associations without interference by the state. Their legal status will be recognized by the simple registration of their constituent act. The cancellation or suspension of legal status may only occur through legal means.
Moreover, the Constitution provides that the State “will contribute to the organization, promotion, and guidance of professional, civic, trade union, community, youth and charitable or nongovernmental public-purpose associations, without prejudicing their authority so that they may constitute democratic means of representation in the various functions of participation, agreement, control, and supervision of the public activities that they undertake.”
National Laws and Regulations Affecting Sector
Natural and legal persons are guaranteed the right to associate for profit-making and nonprofit-making purposes. The Civil Code regulates the establishment of companies, associations and societies for profit-making and nonprofit-making purposes. Nonprofit, charitable or welfare associations or societies may be established by private acts. Such associations include trade unions and second – and third-level trade union associations whose legal capacity is automatically recognized when they are formed, but which must be registered with the labor authorities upon establishment.
The right of assembly and the right to demonstrate are protected by Article 37 in the chapter of the Constitution on fundamental rights. Statutory Act No. 137 on States of Emergency of 1994 sets no particular restrictions on this right. Decree No. 1355 of 1970, which introduced the National Police Code, contains the regulatory framework relating to the right of assembly.
The Police Code, 2017 requires individuals to provide advance notification to authorities at least 48 hours before a protest. At least three people need to sign a petition to demonstrate at public roads or grounds. Where protesters block a road or street without notification, they may be subject to criminal conviction, fines, and terms of imprisonment pursuant to Colombia’s Criminal Code. A demonstration can be dissolved by the police if there is a “grave and imminent alteration of harmony” and there are no other less intrusive means at the authorities’ disposal.
Law 863 of 2003 (Article 8) establishes income tax exemptions for not-for-profit corporations, foundations and associations with legal standing, with respect to income from all activities and assets employed toward their aims and purposes. CSO must maintain separate books and accounts with respect to any business they carry out and such books need to be registered at the local chamber of commerce.
The Transparency and Access to Public Information Law of March 2014 requires all government agencies and employees to answer requests for information. It also establishes a minimum of information content that the government must publish and requires government entities to provide proof and arguments justifying cases where information is withheld.
Law 1801 (National Police Code and Coexistence) requires individuals to receive approval from authorities at least 48 hours before a protest, and the request can then be denied. Civil rights campaigners feel that this violates a constitutional right to social mobilization, both because permits to hold an assembly can be rejected and because authorities can prevent assemblies by requiring excessive paperwork from applicants. Congressmen who supported Law 1801 claim that it is only intended to control traffic problems and does not give administrators the right to simply silence protesters.
Pending NGO Legislative / Regulatory Initiatives
1. Due to discontent with the current government, Colombians have been taking to the streets to demand change more frequently. This was clearest during the National Strike, which started on November 21, 2019 and was followed by seven days of protests, including the rare enactment of a curfew on November 22. Subsequently, there were intermittent protests in December 2019 and January 2020 and a National Strike on January 21, 2020. The National Strike Committee announced a national mobilization day on the streets on February 21, 2020, which was followed by another National Strike on March 25, 2020.
During the protests, five people were killed, and hundreds more were injured. Growing fear and animosity towards the Escuadrones Móviles Antidisturbios (ESMAD), or Mobile Anti-Disturbance Squadrons, and their questionable tactics was brought to the fore, especially after the death of Dilan Cruz, a teenager killed by a projectile fired by an ESMAD member.
In the wake of growing anger, two bills aiming to regulate the right to protest were discussed in Congress in March 2020.
Bill 216 of 2019
The stated purpose of the first bill, Bill 216 of 2019, is to “take measures in order to guarantee the right to peaceful protest and to create two new crimes to the penal code”: vandalism and the promotion of vandalism. According to the bill’s definition of vandalism, “whoever, taking advantage of a protest, manifestation, or public mobilization, attacks or destroys public or private property, or attacks the physical integrity of members of the public forces will incur 6 to 8 years of prison and a fine of 100 to 500 monthly wages at the time” (roughly $25,600 to $128,000).
Additionally, the crime of vandalism will be considered aggravated, and therefore receive a higher punishment, if the perpetrator committed the crime with others; covered their face completely or partially, so that they could not be identified; or carried, transported, or offered weapons or explosives or other corrosive substances. Finally, the bill would also penalize those who “promote, help, finance, facilitate, stimulate, incite, induce, or provide the means” to carry out vandalism.
This bill fails in many respects to comply with international and national standards of criminal law and human rights and significantly stigmatizes and suppresses the right to protest in Colombia. First, criminalization of conduct is highly suspect as a means to guarantee the full enjoyment of the right to peacefully protest. Second, the bill is unnecessary, since the conduct it intends to criminalize is already covered by existing crimes in the Colombian Penal Code. Third, the punishments provided by the bill are unreasonably harsh and disproportionate. Fourth, the bill uses ambiguous language, which is highly susceptible to abuse in interpretation. When defining the crime of vandalism, the bill prohibits “damaging” or “attacking” public or private property or the physical integrity of members of the public forces. The bill does not specify what type of damage or attacks are covered by this provision. Similarly, there are concerns about the broad language used for the second crime – promotion of vandalism. Words like “promote,” “help,” “facilitate,” “incite,” and “induce,” without further specification, are all susceptible to broad interpretation.
Bill 281 of 2019
The second draft bill, Statutory Draft Bill 281 of 2019, purports to regulate, guarantee, and protect the right to social and peaceful protest, mobilization, and assembly; to determine the scope of this right; and to define the responsibilities and obligations of the exercising individuals and the authorities. Among other things, the bill aims to ensure the full and effective enjoyment of this right, as well as to define the contours of when and how this right may be limited, while taking into account a human rights perspective.
According to the draft bill, participants in social protests have the right to participate freely and safely in protests, to protest peacefully without the interference of public forces, and to know their rights during detainment and the reason for being detained. Further, the bill imposes obligations on the State both before and during protests. Prior to protests, the government must properly identify the public forces that will intervene in the protest and verify that the equipment and weapons to be used comply with human rights standards. However, the draft bill requires the government to prevent the presence of people with covered faces during protests, which could be restrictive, and to protect critical infrastructure related to public goods and services.
The draft bill also establishes the National Democracy Fund (FONDEMOCRACIA) to ensure the availability of resources to indemnify those who suffer physical or economic damage in the course of a social protest in Colombia. Funds will be provided to any person, whether natural or legal, Colombian or foreigner, as long as they have suffered physical or economic damage as a result of a protest. Businesses trying to recuperate funds for damage will have to demonstrate they are legally registered entities and that the damages they are claiming are not related to lost profits as a result of the protest. The maximum payment from the fund will be equivalent to 50 monthly wages at the time (approximately $12,800).
Lastly, the draft bill provides anticipatory and corrective measures that should be implemented in the exercise of the right to protest. For those who commit vandalism during a protest, the bill envisions both economic sanctions, such as fines, and corrective sanctions, including public apologies, community service, and other restorative justice measures. The statutory bill includes a list of corrective measures that can be applied to “those who participate in or promote violent acts or vandalism in the development of a protest.” It does not identify the entity in charge of enforcing or monitoring such corrective measures, however.
After almost 30 years without a normative framework for guaranteeing the full enjoyment of the right to peaceful protest, this bill could be a positive development. The bill explicitly states that the right to protest is a fundamental right; avoids a criminalizing approach in regulating the right to protest; and incorporates corrective, economic, and restorative measures.
Still,The language of the draft could be strengthened. First, the bill fails to protect the manner in which protestors can exercise their right to protest. For example, Article 9(b) prohibits the presence of people who cover their faces (called encapuchados) or in any other manner prevent their identification. Second, the bill fails to address the problem of transparency and clarity in police protocols and resolutions. Third, the bill fails to address one of the principal reasons for protests in Colombia – the state’s failure to comply with agreements made after previous protests. Fourth, the bill’s provisions on asymmetrical measures for rural regions of the country give the state license to violate rural Colombians’ right to protest. Additionally, the bill gives “public forces” broad powers of surveillance, which can violate the right to privacy. Finally, Article 7(i) of the draft bill grants security forces broad powers of discretion in detaining protestors and sending them to special seclusion areas to initiate the imposition of pedagogic and indemnity measures.
2. The National Police Code and Coexistence (Law 1801), which was approved by Congress in 2016, established provisions regulating public demonstrations and protests. At the time, human rights activists considered that, for many reasons, the new regulations violated a Constitutional right to social mobilization. For instance, activists believed that the vagueness of the provisions allowed authorities to prevent assemblies by requiring excessive paperwork from applicants. Shortly after its entry into force, human rights lawyers challenged the legislation before the Constitutional Court. In a 2017 ruling, the Court found that the Code’s chapter that regulates public demonstrations had violated the Constitution insofar as it had not been erected by a Statutory Law, which according to the Constitution is required when regulating individual rights. To avoid a regulatory vacuum, the Constitutional Court deferred the application of its judgment to June 20, 2019 and urged Congress to pass a Statutory Law on the matter. However, at the time of writing this update, Congress had not started the discussion of a draft bill on the Statutory Law.
A statutory law requires not only Congressional approval but also an integral review by the Constitutional Court, which will render it impossible for any new regulations to enter into force by June 20, 2019. There is a debate among legal experts as to what will be the rules governing protests beyond June 20, 2019. To some experts, the previous 1978 Police Code should regain authority, which in the view of activists would be highly problematic since the last Police Code placed unconstitutional restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly. Other legal experts consider that in the absence of a statute, authorities should apply the rules set by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. In any case, the lack of regulation will allow authorities an unconstitutionally wide leeway to decide on the legality of demonstrations in the public space.
Please help keep us informed; if you are aware of pending initiatives, write to ICNL at ngomonitor@icnl.org.
Organizational Forms
Since 2000, Colombian authorities have implemented numerous laws and regulations that address civil society organizations. Unfortunately these rules have complicated the legal framework. For example, these laws and regulations frequently refer to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), without providing a legal definition for NGOs. As a result, the laws regarding nonprofit entities are vague and often contradictory.
Regardless of the variety of types of non-profit legal entities existing in the Colombian legal system, private law only recognizes two forms, the nonprofit corporation/association [1] and public charitable foundations.
In Colombia, the registration of a CSO follows a two-step procedure. According to law, the chambers of commerce manage public registries (commercial, government suppliers and nonprofit organizations). These registries are only a means of publicity. An application for the set up of a CSO should be submitted together with: (a) memorandum of association and rules and regulations; (b) minutes of the Executive Board or General Assembly that endorses the setting up of the CSO; (c) a detailed mission statement, including program and project information; (d) a legal address and a list of the names, addresses and occupations of the founders; (e) a statement showing in detail the assets of the organization; (f) an affidavit sworn by the president or secretary of the CSO; and (g) a declaration by the members of the managing committee that the funds of the society will be used only for the purpose of furthering the aims and objects of the society. Then, the application for registration needs to be submitted either at the state level (Gobernaciones) or at the district level (alcaldías) in which the CSO is sought to be registered.
In Law 22 of 1987, the legislature authorized the 32 governors of the country and its equivalent, the Mayor of Bogota Capital District to inspect and supervise CSOs. CSOs must submit to the authorities a general balance sheet upon conclusion of the fiscal year and activity reports on a yearly basis.
Cancellation of the legal status of organizations is governed by Presidential Decree 1529 of 1990. The causes for cancellation are established in Article 7. A request for cancellation of legal status of a certain CSO may be submitted by anyone on the grounds of illegal activities, violations of public order, or when its activities do not correspond to the purposes for which it was formed. The corresponding Governor or Mayor Office is requested to open a file to investigate the allegations, make an on-site visit to the concerned CSO, and make a decision within 10 working days.
[1] The term “association” is not a legal person provided by the Civil Code but refers to the constitutional freedom that people use to form a corporation.
Public Benefit Status
Colombia does not grant public benefit status to a special category of nonprofit organizations. However, foundations are assumed to operate for the “public benefit.” The Constitution recognizes foundations as being “institutions of public use,” with the intention of “public benefit.”
Under Colombian tax laws, CSOs engaged in health activities, sports, formal education, cultural, scientific or technological, ecological, environmental protection or social development programs, qualify for special tax benefits that include a lower tax rate than commercial companies or, in some cases, full exemption from paying income taxes.
Barriers to Entry
Overall, the requirements to be met in order to set up and operate a CSO in Colombia are straightforward. In fact, some believe that it is too simple, and the lax process could lead to abuse.
Although the Constitution allows civil society organizations to form for many purposes, there are, in practice, limitations when these purposes conflict with the government’s actions or ideology. For example, some CSOs, particularly human rights groups that are critical of the government, have greater difficulty obtaining or retaining legal status.
Barriers to Operational Activity
Although there are no express legal barriers to operational activities, the subjective application of regulations by government institutions often produces a disparity between the original intent of the laws and their present enforcement.
Human rights organizations also operate within a climate of harassment, as detailed in the following section.
[1] See Nonprofit Enterprise and Self-sustainability Team (NESsT), The Legal and Regulatory Framework for CSO Self-Financing in Colombia.
Barriers to Speech / Advocacy
Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world in which to be a human rights defender, with dozens of labor rights activists, lawyers, indigenous activists and community and religious leaders being murdered every year.
In recent years, human rights CSOs and their members have been frequent victims of reprisals and undue restrictions as a result of their work in promoting and protecting the victims of the armed conflict. On several occasions, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights has voiced its concern about threats against human rights defenders and members of CSOs.
Other forms of violations include: illegal surveillance, smear campaigns and criminal prosecutions, and violations of the home and other arbitrary or abusive entry to the offices of human rights organizations, and interference in correspondence and phone and electronic communication.
Statements by government officials have contributed to a climate of increased danger for human rights defenders in Colombia. International monitoring bodies have also expressed concern about such statements that seem to endorse acts of violence against human rights defenders and their organizations.
Barriers to International Contact
There are no legal barriers to communication and contact internationally. That said, there may be cultural limitation on CSOs interacting with international actors in that it could be considered an act of disloyalty when criticizing the government in the international arena.
Barriers to Resources
CSOs are permitted to receive foreign funding via grants or donations. In addition, CSOs are permitted to acquire and dispose of property, contract personnel, invest resources, and import and export goods. To prevent money laundering, Colombian banks require a document officially translated into Spanish that describes the origin of support when the funds are converted to pesos.
Barriers to Assembly
Vague Provisions. In 2011, Colombia’s Congress approved reforms to the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Juvenile Criminal Code. Article 353(A) of the Criminal Code uses vague language to address the obstruction of public ways during protests: “Any person who, by illicit means, obstructs, temporarily or permanently, selectively or generally, the public ways or any other transportation infrastructure in such a way that affects the public order or mobility, will be sentenced to prison for four to eight years and mandated to pay a fine of between 13 and 75 times the current monthly minimum wage.” The vagueness of this provision could lead to the prosecution of the lawful exercise of the right to the freedom of assembly provided by the Constitution.
In addition, Article 53 of Law 1801 explicitly defines the permissible purposes of protests to include “collective ideas and interests of cultural, political, economic, religious and social character.” While seemingly broad, there is sufficient ambiguity in the provision as to give administrative authorities the authority to refuse a protest application, by deeming the protest purpose “illegitimate” if they feel the protest would be critical of the current government.
Police under Article 53 also have the right to disband an approved protest if it turns into a “disturbance”. Since there is no clear definition for what constitutes a “disturbance”, a protest can essentially be disbanded for any reason the authorities choose.
Advance Notification.
The National Police Code (Decree No. 1355 of 1970) stipulates in Article 102:
Any person may meet with others or parade in a public place for the purpose of expressing common interests and ideas of a political, economic, religious or social nature or for any other lawful purpose. For these purposes, notice shall be given in person and in writing to the local administrative authorities. The communication shall be signed by at least three persons. The notice shall specify the date, time and place of the proposed meeting and be submitted 48 hours in advance. In the case of parades, the planned route shall be specified.
Accordingly, spontaneous demonstrations would not be lawful, since 48 hours notice must be provided. Article 188 of Decree 522 of 1971 provides that within the 24 hours of the receipt of the notification of an assembly, the public authority may, based on public order considerations and through a reasoned decision, modify the planned route for the parade, its date, place or time. However, if there is no response by the authority within 24 hours, it is understood that the assembly may take place.
Enforcement and Excessive Force. The authorities normally do not interfere with public meetings and demonstrations. There have been, however, complaints of police brutality against demonstrators. For instance, in a 2006 Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that: During the demonstrations that took place on 1 May in Bogotá one person died. The same occurred in Cali, when a demonstration took place at the University of Valle in September. An excessive use of force by the police was observed in Tolima in October during indigenous mingas (traditional community gatherings).
In addition, in May 2016 farmers and indigenous protesters demanded the government keep promises it made in 2013, which led to a national strike in 2013 that left dozens dead during a government crackdown. When protests recommenced tensions immediately escalated just outside Buenaventura, Colombia’s main port city, where police killed one protester after protesters effectively blocked the main road connecting the port city with the rest of the country. The national strike ended when the government made new commitments. However, in March 2019 a new protest was initiated by indigenous communities in Cauca region. The protesters were demanding to meet with Colombia’s President, Ivan Duque, and advocated for strengthened land rights and an end to political violence and displacement. Indigenous leaders claim the government has fallen short in its compliance of what was promised after the 2013 and 2016 demonstrations. The government, however, has declared it cannot satisfy the “excessive promises” made by the former government.
| UN Universal Periodic Review Reports | Third Session National Report Compilation of UN information Summary of stakeholders’ information Report of the Working Group Decision on the Outcome Draft Report on the eighth session of the Human Rights Council |
| Reports of UN Special Rapporteurs | OHCHR: Colombia |
| USIG (United States International Grantmaking) Country Notes | Not available |
| U.S. State Department | 2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Colombia |
| Fragile States Index Reports | Foreign Policy: Fragile States Index |
| IMF Country Reports | Colombia and the IMF |
| International Commission of Jurists | Not available |
| International Center for Not-for-Profit Law Online Library | Colombia |
While we aim to maintain information that is as current as possible, we realize that situations can rapidly change. If you are aware of any additional information or inaccuracies on this page, please keep us informed; write to ICNL at ngomonitor@icnl.org.
General News
Colombian Intelligence Unit Used U.S. Equipment to Spy on Journalists and Human Rights Defenders (May 2020)
An army intelligence unit provided with U.S. surveillance equipment to fight Marxist rebels and drug traffickers used the assets throughout 2019 to spy on political opponents, government officials, journalists and human-rights activists. Army intelligence units have been developing detailed dossiers on the personal lives of at least 130 reporters, human rights defenders, politicians, judges, and possible military whistleblowers.
Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders Releases Report on Colombia (December 2019)
On December 26, 2019, the United Nations Human Rights Council released a report prepared by Michel Forst, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, on his visit to the country from 20 November to 3 December 2019. The report highlights that “Colombia remains the country with the highest number of murdered human rights defenders in Latin America, and threats against this group have soared.” According to the report, the defenders most at risk are social leaders defending human rights in rural areas, in particular those promoting the implementation of the Peace Agreement and defending land and environmental rights and the rights of ethnic communities.
Colombia’s Peace Deal Promised a New Era. So Why Are These Rebels Rearming? (June 2019)
After Colombia’s government signed a peace deal with the country’s main rebel group, ending decades of war and upheaval, both sides said it heralded a new era. But two and a half years after the militants agreed to lay down their arms, many of the promises made are not being honored, and the prospect of a true, lasting peace now seems far from certain.
‘Terrible trend’ of rights defenders killed, harassed (May 2019)
Alarmed by the “strikingly high number” of human rights defenders being killed, harassed and threatened in Colombia, the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) in the country on Friday, called on authorities to “make a significant effort” to “tackle the endemic impunity” surrounding these cases.
Regional Strike in Cauca Enters Twelfth Day (March 2019)
In response to the demands of the people for dialogue on implementing state promises in education and agriculture, the government has unleashed special police units which have arrested many and injured dozens. The protesters are seeking dialogue with the national government of president Iván Duque and demand compliance with agreements signed by the state in 2013 concerning education, health, housing and land for all.
Colombia must act to stop killings and attacks against human rights defenders (December 2018)
Since the adoption of a peace agreement in Colombia two years ago there has been a dramatic increase in the number of killings, threats and intimidation of human rights defenders in the country, a UN human rights expert said today.
Student strikes continue: The march of the pencils (November 2018)
Thousands of students have disrupted life in Colombia’s capital with nationwide demonstrations to press demands for President Ivan Duque to increase education spending. The “Pencil March” rallies across Colombia were the latest chapter in more than a half-dozen street protests in recent months demanding that the government boost funding for education.
Colombia’s new defense Minister proposes to limit right to protest and attacks social leaders (July 2018)
During the Concordia Summit in America, which ended Tuesday at the congress center Ágora, the newly appointed Defense Minister Guillermo Botero assured that the new government should promote measures to regulate social protests. “We respect social protest but we also believe that it has to be ordered and that it truly represents the interests of all Colombians and not just a small group,” he said.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights orders Colombia to investigate journalist’s murder (June 2018)
In a statement released June 6, the court condemned the Colombian government for failing to properly investigate and pursue justice in the case of Radio Sur journalist Carvajal. The court found the government guilty of negligent treatment of Carvajal’s family and said that it failed to investigate death threats against nine of the journalist’s relatives, who were forced to flee the country. It also found the government responsible for “extraordinary delays” in pursuing justice.
Iván Duque wins election to become Colombia’s president (June 2018)
Iván Duque, who opposes the peace deal, won in a second round runoff election on Sunday with 53.9% of the vote. Many now worry about the fate of the fragile peace deal signed with the Farc in 2016, which formally ended 52 years of civil war that left 220,000 dead and seven million displaced. Duque promised on the campaign trail to modify the deal’s most contentious components, something that resonated with voters.
IACHR Urges Colombia to Adopt Urgent Measures to Protect Human Rights Defenders (March 2018)
On March 27, 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) expressed its concern over the high number of murders of human rights defenders and social leaders registered this year in Colombia. The Commission also urged the State to adopt urgent measures to protect those who defend human rights in the country, as well as to carry out diligent investigations that take into consideration the victim’s activity as a human rights defender.