| 7. Forced Displacement and Recruitment of Minors
 233. State agents are responsible for a portion of the massive forced
    displacement of persons which occurs in Colombia each year as a result of violence. In
    addition, the Colombian public security forces have continued to recruit and permit the
    enrollment of children to serve in the Military Forces. The Commission will discuss these
    problems in Chapters VI and XIII, which specifically deal with issues relating to forced
    displacement and children.
 
 
 F. VIOLENCE CARRIED OUT BY PARAMILITARY ORGANIZATIONS 1. Applicable Legal Norms 234. It is understood in Colombia that, because of their increasingly
    direct and sustained participation in the hostilities, certain paramilitary groups,
    particularly those linked to the Castaño and Carranza families, must be considered
    parties to the internal armed conflict in Colombia.( 130
    ) International humanitarian law thus applies for the purpose of assessing their actions.
    In addition, to the extent that these groups act as State agents or proxies, or their
    illicit acts are acquiesced in, condoned, or tolerated by the State, their actions may be
    attributable to the State and engage the State's international responsibility for
    violations of the American Convention and other applicable human rights instruments.( 131 )
 
 235. As the Commission has explained, the Commission's central role is
    to address violations of human rights law norms which entail State responsibility. The
    Commission therefore believes it necessary to analyze the relation between the
    paramilitaries and the State in order to determine to what extent, and under what
    circumstances, there exists State responsibility for violations of human rights in
    connection with actions undertaken by the paramilitaries.
 
 
 2. Relation between the State and the Paramilitary
    Organizations 236. The Commission must conclude that the State has played an
    important role in the development of the paramilitary groups and has not adequately
    combated those groups. The State is thus responsible, in a global sense, for the existence
    of the paramilitaries and therefore faces responsibility for the actions carried out by
    those groups.
 
 237. As was noted in Chapter I of this report, the State allowed the
    paramilitaries to act with legal protection and legitimacy in the 1970s and 1980s. State
    officials supported the growth of the paramilitaries as a means of fighting the armed
    dissident groups. The State eventually was forced to prohibit the creation of paramilitary
    groups, because these groups had become powerful and violent allies of those engaged in
    the drug trade. However, even when the paramilitary groups became illegal in the late
    1980s, the State did little to dismantle the structure which it had created and
    encouraged, particularly when these groups carried out counter-insurgency activities.
 
 238. In fact, some sectors have suggested that the resurgence of
    paramilitary activity in the last several years took place with the approval or even
    assistance of the State's security forces. It has been suggested that the Military Forces
    recognized that they could avoid the political costs of engaging in war without limits by
    leaving to the paramilitary groups the tasks which violated human rights and international
    humanitarian law and which would attract the attention of the public and the international
    community. Thus, the paramilitary groups began perpetrating prohibited acts on behalf of
    or as auxiliaries to the Military Forces and increasingly became independent forces which,
    in some sense, have replaced the State's security forces and carry out their own war
    against the armed dissident groups. This view of the development of the paramilitaries is
    supported by the statistics which show that, over the last several years, the number of
    violations of human rights and humanitarian law committed by the paramilitaries have
    increased significantly while the number of violations directly attributable to the
    Military Forces have decreased at a similar rate.
 
 239. Until recently, the State's public security forces had entered
    into combat only on extremely rare occasions with paramilitary groups and had carried out
    almost no detentions of members of paramilitary groups. Even when the Office of the
    Prosecutor General began to issue arrest warrants, these warrants were not executed. The
    identity and whereabouts of many paramilitary leaders were public, yet no arrests took
    place. In this connection, even the Prosecutor General of the Nation, Alfonso
    Gómez, has
    denounced the complacency of some sectors of the population towards the paramilitaries and
    has stated that some low and mid-level military officials "tolerate" these
    groups.( 132 )
 
 240. Offers of award money for the arrest of paramilitaries were
    announced at the end of 199, including for the capture of well-known paramilitary leader
    Carlos Castaño. However, no follow-up of the announcement ever occurred. Numerous
    representatives of the media and governmental authorities knew where to find Carlos
    Castaño to carry out interviews and meetings with him, yet the bodies responsible for
    carrying out the arrest warrant against him were unable or unwilling to do so. During the
    Commission's on-site visit to Colombia in December of 1997, the Prosecutor General of the
    Nation announced that his office had issued 180 arrest warrants against paramilitary
    leaders. Yet, no arrests had taken place. Similarly, the Human Rights Unit of the Office
    of the Prosecutor General of the Nation provided the Commission with a list of outstanding
    arrest warrants against members of paramilitary organizations during the Commission's
    on-site visit. According to that information, the Human Rights Unit alone had issued 115
    arrest warrants, yet none of the individuals named in those warrants had been arrested.
    Those paramilitary members named by the Human Rights Unit included individuals who had
    already been convicted, as well as suspects and individuals officially accused.
 
 241. After paramilitary groups perpetrated numerous horrifying
    massacres in the latter part of 1997, which received widespread publicity and several of
    which coincided with the Commission's on-site visit, the Colombian State was prompted to
    take more aggressive action against the paramilitaries. On December 1, 1997, the
    Government announced a plan to combat the paramilitaries. The plan included new
    announcements of award money for the capture of paramilitary leaders and the creation of a
    specialized search force ("bloque de búsqueda") to facilitate captures.( 133 )
 
 242. Since that time, the State has begun to offer some tangible
    results in the fight against the paramilitaries. On December 2, 1997, the day after
    President Samper announced new measures to fight paramilitaries, a judge in Bogotá
    convicted Arnulfo Castillo Agudelo, a known paramilitary leader in the Meta Department. On
    December 10, 1997, the National Tribunal issued a decision sentencing Iván Roberto Duque
    to 13 years of prison. The press called the decision the first conviction of a
    paramilitary ideologue.
 
 243. On February 24, 1998, agents of the Technical Corps for
    Investigations (Cuerpo Técnico de Investigación - "CTI") of the Office of the
    Prosecutor General of the Nation captured Victor Carranza Niño. Victor Carranza is a
    well-known emerald mine owner who has been accused for years by many sectors of being the
    primary patron of the paramilitary groups which act in the eastern plains and in the
    Department of Boyacá. Despite the numerous accusations against him, Victor Carranza had
    never been prosecuted previously. He had been arrested on one prior occasion in September
    of 1990. He was released the following day, because there was no arrest warrant pending
    against him.
 
 244. In addition, according to the XVII Brigade, its Army units killed
    five alleged members of paramilitary groups in combat in Urabá in January of 1998. On
    February 12, 1998, police forces in Antioquia exchanged fire with a paramilitary leader
    from the Dabeiba region of Antioquia. The paramilitary leader, Edwin Alvarez Cano, was
    killed in the incident. According to persons from the area, Alvarez had served in an
    important position in the ACCU. Subsequently, on March 1, 1998, the Army captured 12
    alleged paramilitary members in the Magdalena Medio region in an operation carried out in
    Cimitarra, Department of Santander.
 
 245. According to recent statistics provided to the Commission by the
    Colombian Government, the Military Forces, the National Police and DAS, between January
    and May of 1998, captured a total of 139 paramilitary group members and killed in combat
    22 members of those groups.( 134 ) These statistics
    provide some reassurance regarding the determination of the Colombian State to eliminate
    violent paramilitary groups. However, the Commission notes that the statistical report
    also shows that, during the same time period, the State's security forces killed 254
    members of armed dissident groups and captured 436 members of those groups. In addition,
    the same packet of materials provided to the Commission by the Colombian State includes a
    letter from the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation.
    The letter, dated May 11, 1998, indicates that the specialized search force created by
    President Samper had not yet carried out any of the arrest warrants issued by that Unit
    against members of paramilitary groups.
 
 246. In January of 1999 the State announced yet another plan with a new
    strategy for combating paramilitary groups. This announcement roughly coincided with
    published reports attributing responsibility to paramilitary groups for multiple horrific
    massacres that resulted in the death of nearly 140 people. The proposed strategy provides
    for a coordinated effort to gather intelligence information useful in the task of
    disarming the command and financial structure of paramilitary groups, together with the
    intensification of military and police operations. The plan aims at achieving concrete
    results within pre-established time limits. The Commission hopes that this announcement
    signals the serious determination of the State to take all necessary measures, concertedly
    and at all levels, to confront and terminate the illegal activities of these irregular
    groups. The Commission must express its disappointment with the attitude adopted by the
    State in the fight against paramilitary groups, particularly during the process of their
    emergence and strengthening. After an initial period during which it failed to take any
    action whatsoever to suffocate the emerging irregular groups, the State started
    progressively to make some late efforts. Such efforts, however, have not translated into a
    proportional response to the growth of the phenomena and, as confirmed by recent events,
    they have not been adequate in the least.
 
 247. The Commission nonetheless considers recent measures to combat the
    paramilitaries to be of utmost importance and will continue to observe with great interest
    the steps taken by the Colombian State in this regard. The Commission recognizes that
    dismantling the paramilitaries in Colombia is not an easy or a quick task. These groups
    have, in many cases, become very independent from the State which originally promoted them
    and have become extremely strong and powerful in their own right. Some of the groups have
    developed into well-armed and well-trained military style units. These groups will not
    easily cede to the wishes of the State even if the State has finally taken a firm decision
    to abolish them.
 
 248. The Commission also acknowledges that the State's international
    obligations generally are ones of means rather than results. In other words, the State
    must take all appropriate measures to dismantle the paramilitaries and halt their abuses.
    Where a State takes all such measures and does not obtain the desired result of
    eliminating the paramilitary groups, in principle that State does not face international
    responsibility. Nonetheless, the Commission is of the view that the Colombian State bears
    a very high burden of showing that it has adopted all necessary measures and that it acts
    with full conviction in combating the paramilitaries, given the State's role in allowing
    these groups to achieve the strength that they possess today. In the Commission's opinion,
    the State has not yet met that burden.
 
 249. Even as the State has expressed increased interest in combating
    the paramilitaries over the last several years, the Commission has continued to receive
    information regarding cooperation between paramilitary groups and the State's public
    security forces. This information calls into question the State's commitment to
    eliminating the paramilitaries. In addition, the Commission reiterates that, in all cases
    where paramilitaries act as proxies of State agents or with the cooperation or
    acquiescence of those agents, the State becomes internationally responsible for the abuses
    which they commit. The international responsibility of the State for the human rights
    abuses committed is not diminished by the fact that the State has enunciated a general
    policy against the paramilitaries. The Commission will thus proceed to analyze the
    information which it has received regarding the relation which has existed between the
    State's security forces and paramilitary groups in Colombia.
 
 250. The Commission has received information which indicates that, in
    certain areas of the country, there exists a high degree of collaboration between the Army
    and paramilitary groups. The Commission has received testimony and information to the
    effect that, in some cases, members of the Army and the paramilitaries carry out joint
    operations. In some cases, members of both armed groups actually patrol together. In
    others, soldiers enter an area first and warn the population that the paramilitaries are
    coming behind them. The paramilitaries then commit acts of violence against those who do
    not follow instructions.
 
 251. During its visit to Urabá, the Commission received testimony
    regarding such joint operations. Many individuals told the Commission that, at the
    beginning of 1997, the Army had appeared in the small communities near San José de
    Apartadó to announce to the residents that they must leave the area. The soldiers warned
    that, if residents did not follow these instructions, the paramilitaries would follow and
    would attack those who remained. Within a short period, the paramilitaries began to carry
    out extrajudicial executions in the area, forcing most of the residents to flee their
    homes to find refuge in San José de Apartadó, Apartadó and other areas.
 
 252. The Commission received specific information concerning the death
    of Miguel Angel Graciano, resident of the small community of Salto de
    Apartadó, in such a
    joint operation executed in March of 1997. According to several witnesses, Mr. Graciano
    was captured along with Bernardo Moreno Londoño by a joint patrol of paramilitary members
    and soldiers. The patrollers told the two captured individuals that their group included
    40 paramilitary members and 80 soldiers. The patrol then removed the captives to two
    different areas. Mr. Moreno was subsequently released by the soldiers who held him. Mr.
    Graciano was apparently left with the paramilitary members. His dead body, displaying
    signs of torture, was found a short time later.
 
 253. The Commission must assume that, in these cases of joint activity,
    the commander of the local military base, battalion or brigade has knowledge of the
    cooperation between his soldiers and the paramilitaries, although such knowledge is
    denied. Thus, for example, General Rito Alejo del Río, who at the time of the
    Commission's visit served as Commander of the XVII Brigade, with jurisdiction over the San
    José de Apartadó area, denied any connection between the soldiers under his jurisdiction
    and the paramilitaries in the area. However, the Commission received information which
    made this denial implausible.
 
 254. For example, the Commission specifically asked General Rito Alejo
    del Río about the existence of a paramilitary roadblock in the road between Apartadó and
    San José de Apartadó. Representatives of the Colombian State, diplomatic missions and
    non-governmental entities alike had provided detailed information to the Commission about
    this roadblock. However, General Alejo del Río denied the existence of any paramilitary
    roadblock.
 
 255. During its visit, the Commission received testimony regarding the
    Army's knowledge about the roadblock. Local authorities informed the Commission that, on
    March 2, 1997, a delegation of Government authorities, including representatives of the
    Office of the Prosecutor, the Police and the Army, was halted by the paramilitaries at the
    usual roadblock. The delegation sought to reach San José de Apartadó to inspect and
    remove the cadavers of Miguel Angel Layos Castañeda, Rubén Antonio Villa Rivera and
    Rubén Antonio Villa Alvarez, who were killed there on February 28, 1997. The individuals
    who had installed the roadblock announced that all was well and that they were members of
    self-defense groups and that the delegation could carry on. A soldier responded amicably
    calling out to the paramilitary members as "cousins."
 
 256. Given this level of interaction between paramilitary forces and
    Army troops within his jurisdiction, the Commission considers that, barring extreme
    ineffectiveness and lack of control over his troops, General Rito Alejo del Río must have
    had knowledge not only of the roadblock but also generally of the presence of
    paramilitaries in the area and the cooperation between those groups and his troops. This
    conclusion is corroborated by the findings of several special commissions, composed of
    governmental and non-governmental organizations, which operated in the region during 1995
    and 1996. One of these commissions found that military and paramilitary units had
    developed lists of persons in the area which showed a high level of collaboration between
    the regular and irregular forces. The commission's report found that these lists were
    utilized as a means of control in roadblocks set up by the groups around the region.( 135 ) Another commission reported that the
    relationship between State security forces and paramilitary groups in the area was open
    and notorious. That commission found that members of the Army often went to paramilitary
    bases and even carried out training sessions there, while other local security forces were
    known to play pool with the paramilitaries.( 136 )
 
 257. Yet, despite numerous complaints about the collaboration between
    the Army and paramilitaries in the jurisdiction of the XVII Brigade and the manifest
    seriousness of the situation, the Army never investigated General Rito Alejo del Río's
    conduct in this regard. In fact, the Ministry of Defense recently transferred him to the
    important post of Commander of the XIII Brigade, which includes Bogotá in its
    jurisdiction. In addition, official army propaganda from the Army General Command made
    favorable reference in 1997 to the "pacification" of the Urabá region. Based on
    this information, the Commission considers that the Colombian State should investigate the
    degree to which knowledge regarding joint activities between members of the Army and
    paramilitaries may also have reached high levels of the Army. In August of 1998, civilian
    prosecutors finally opened a preliminary investigation into General Rito Alejo del Río's
    activities in Urabá.
 
 258. The Commission notes that, in these cases of joint activity
    between the military and paramilitaries, particularly when carried out with knowledge by
    superiors, the members of the paramilitary groups clearly act as State agents. The
    Commission must therefore judge their actions by human rights law as well as by
    humanitarian law norms, and the violations which they commit will be attributable to the
    State.
 
 259. The information analyzed by the Commission suggests that, in other
    cases and areas of the country, members of the military and the paramilitary have strong
    connections which do not involve joint operations. These ties with the paramilitaries may
    exist at different levels of the Military Forces. These connections often permit the
    State's security forces to request that the paramilitaries execute certain tasks and the
    paramilitaries may, in turn, demand from the Military Forces the right to undertake
    criminal activity with impunity.
 
 260. For many years, organizations and individuals in the Department of
    Meta have denounced such ties between high-level Army officials at the Seventh Brigade in
    Villavicencio and the paramilitaries connected with the Carranza family. For example,
    Josué Giraldo, President of the Human Rights Committee for Meta, denounced such links
    before he was killed. Shortly before his execution, Mr. Giraldo had noticed that he was
    frequently followed by vehicles belonging to the Seventh Brigade. His death on October 13,
    1996 was presumably at the hands of the paramilitaries. Based on this type of information,
    the Commission has repeatedly asked the State to investigate and remove those officials at
    the Seventh Brigade who have connections to paramilitary groups. The State has not yet
    taken any steps in this regard.
 
 261. In February of 1998, the State found sufficient information
    establishing the existence of these types of connections between paramilitaries and
    members of the State's security forces in Bolívar to arrest four Police and Army
    officials. The Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation ordered the arrests which
    were executed against the second commander of the Army's Junín Battalion and three
    commanders for the Police of Bolívar. The Office of the Prosecutor General is
    investigating these officials for allegedly working with known paramilitary leader Carlos
    Castaño to coordinate paramilitary groups. The Army and the Police, respectively, removed
    the suspects from their positions and detained them upon petition by the Office of the
    Prosecutor General.
 
 262. In these cases of cooperation between elements of the military and
    the paramilitaries, the Commission also finds that the members of the paramilitary groups
    are, in effect, State agents. These persons act with the cooperation and support of State
    agents and often receive information about possible targets from members of the State's
    security forces. They also receive protection from these State agents against
    investigation and sanction. The persons whom they act against with violence or threats
    generally understand that the paramilitaries enjoy special strength and authority derived
    from their collaboration with the State. The members of these paramilitary groups thus
    effectively act under color of official authority. Their actions must therefore be judged
    by the standards set forth in human rights law as well as humanitarian law. When they
    violate human rights and humanitarian law norms, the State will bear international
    responsibility for those violations.
 
 263. The Commission has also received information indicating that State
    entities and agents sometimes acquiesce in the actions of paramilitary groups where more
    active participation does not take place. The case of the massacre of Mapiripán provides
    an example of a case where, at a minimum, the paramilitaries involved benefited from the
    acquiescence of State security forces. Over the course of six days between July 14 and 20,
    1997, at least 100 heavily armed members of the ACCU paramilitary group seized control of
    Mapiripán, a small coca-growing town in the Meta Department in southeastern Colombia. The
    ACCU members tortured, killed or disappeared approximately 30 villagers. Carlos
    Castaño,
    the leader of the ACCU, readily admitted responsibility for the massacre. He suggested
    that the villagers all deserved their fate because of their ties to armed dissident groups
    and announced that he would coordinate many more such massacres.
 
 264. Many organizations and even State officials have found significant
    evidence that the State could have but did not stop this massacre. The evidence suggests
    that the State's failure to act was so blatant that it suggests clear acquiescence in the
    events, if not more.
 
 265. In June of 1997, paramilitary organizations announced, in their
    third conference, that they would plan incursions into southern Colombia. Yet, the State
    took no action to show that it took these announcements seriously. Nor did the State's
    public security forces take any action to prevent the movement of paramilitary troops to
    the site of the massacre. Days before the massacre, Carlos Castaño transported his men to
    the area by plane. There exists a record of a private plane with capacity for 60 persons
    departing from Los Cedros, Urabá for San José del Guaviare three days before the
    massacre. Yet, there is no record of their arrival at the airfield in San José del
    Guaviare, which is heavily guarded by the Colombian Army. Upon arrival by plane in
    southern Colombia, the paramilitary members then proceeded through an area of the country
    with heavy Army presence to the site of the massacre without any difficulty. The municipal
    judge for Mapiripán, Iván Cortés Novoa, began calling to the Joaquín París Battalion,
    the nearest military base, for immediate assistance on the first day of the paramilitary
    occupation. He called for assistance a total of eight times. Yet, the Army battalion did
    not arrive until July 20, the last day of the killing spree. Several Army officials from
    the Joaquín París Battalion have been detained in relation to the investigation of the
    massacre.
 
 266. In other cases and areas of the country, the information provided
    to the Commission indicates that State agents are responsible for omissions which permit
    the paramilitary groups to carry out their acts of violence. The Commission received
    numerous complaints indicating that Police and Army units stood by as paramilitary groups
    entered towns to intimidate the population, carry out extrajudicial executions and take
    cattle and other goods from the population. Many complaints also allege that, in
    populations with paramilitary presence, the identity of members of the paramilitary groups
    is well-known. Yet, State authorities do not attempt to carry out arrests against these
    individuals.
 
 267. Incidents in early 1998 in the Department of Putumayo may provide
    an example of omissions of State agents in relation to paramilitary violence. On February
    12, 1998, local civil and religious authorities began to denounce killings by
    paramilitaries in the area around Puerto Asís, Department of Putumayo. Representatives of
    the Catholic church and persons fleeing the area stated that a large group of
    paramilitaries had entered the region during the last days of January and had begun
    carrying out selective executions. The mayor of Puerto Asís, Néstor Hernández
    Iglesias,
    fled from the area and confirmed the statements regarding the paramilitary incursion. He
    stated that 45 persons had been killed. Others, including the local Office of the Human
    Rights Ombudsman and local government liaisons ("personeros") placed the number
    of victims between 30 and 50.
 
 268. At their third conference, referenced above, the paramilitary
    organizations had also made known their plan to enter Putumayo. In addition, Carlos
    Castaño confirmed the existence of plans to carry out activities in Putumayo in
    interviews that he held with the press.( 137 ) Yet,
    as with Mapiripán, the State apparently did not take measures to prevent the paramilitary
    incursion.
 269. After information became public regarding the killings in Putumayo, high-level State officials publicly refused to accept the veracity of the
    information or to take special measures to investigate the incidents with a view to
    prosecuting those responsible. National Police Director, General Rosso José Serrano,
    denied knowledge of the killings in Puerto Asís and said that communist agitators were
    spreading misinformation. The Ministry of Defense issued a press release indicating that
    it had received information from local Police, military and prosecutors which contradicted
    the announcements of the killings. They further denied the need to send in the special
    search force ("bloque de búsqueda"). Defense officials suggested that the
    deaths might be part of the normal death rate in the area.
 
 270. Because the killings did not occur in a single massacre, officials
    were able to suggest that a paramilitary incursion had not taken place. Yet, even Police
    statistics soon showed that the violent death rate in the first two months of 1998 had
    experienced a dramatic increase in comparison with first two months of the previous two
    years. Also, the testimony of numerous civil authorities and displaced persons indicate
    that the killings were carried out in a highly selective manner, not characteristic of
    common crime, by armed men with lists of alleged guerrilla sympathizers. These men
    sometimes identified themselves as members of paramilitary groups and painted walls with
    paramilitary slogans. Also, when judicial authorities began to carry out some
    investigations into the crimes, they received written threats from self-identified
    paramilitary groups who accused the authorities of bias in investigations against the
    paramilitaries and in favor of armed dissident groups. Several of those officials had to
    be transferred out of the area. The Commission considers that State agents thus incurred
    in grave omissions in response to information made known in the first months of 1988
    regarding serious violations by paramilitary groups. When local government officials
    denounced new paramilitary killings in Putumayo in August and September 1998, the Army
    finally arrested ten persons alleged to be members of a paramilitary organization.( 138 ) At the same time, the Army criticized the local
    authorities for denouncing the killings.
 
 271. The Commission notes that, in many cases, it might be suggested
    that acts of acquiescence and omission constitute evidence of more direct State
    involvement. However, even where State agents do not directly participate in paramilitary
    acts of violence, the State may become responsible for the violations committed by those
    groups. The State becomes internationally responsible for harm caused to individual rights
    by private actors when it acquiesces in the acts of those private actors or when it fails
    to take reasonable measures to prevent the violation or, subsequently, to investigate and
    sanction those responsible for the harm caused.
 
 272. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes
    that the Colombian State bears international responsibility under human rights law, as
    well as international humanitarian law, for a significant number of the acts of violence
    committed by paramilitary groups in Colombia. The Commission will proceed to describe the
    violations committed by those paramilitary groups.
 
 3. Statistical Information Regarding Violations of the Right
    to Life and Forced Disappearances 273. Most sources agree that paramilitary groups have been responsible,
    over the last several years, for the greatest number of forced disappearances and
    violations of the right to life in Colombia. According to statistics provided by various
    organizations, the percentage of responsibility for killings attributable to paramilitary
    groups have risen steadily over the last several years to approximately 60% of all deaths
    and disappearances, where the authorship is known, carried out for socio-political
    reasons, outside of combat-related activities. In 1995, paramilitary groups killed or
    disappeared approximately 452 individuals outside of combat, while the total number of
    individuals killed as a result of socio-political violence not directly related to combat,
    where the author was identified, was 982.( 139 ) In
    1996, paramilitary groups killed or disappeared approximately 751 individuals outside of
    combat while the total number of individuals killed as a result of socio-political
    violence not directly related to combat, where the author was identified, was 1,198.( 140 ) In 1997, paramilitary groups were responsible
    for approximately 1,152 socio-political killings outside of combat.( 141 )
 
 274. In the case of the paramilitaries, these statistics probably
    provide a relatively clear view of the number of violations of international law
    committed. According to the information provided to the Commission, almost all of the
    violent actions carried out by the paramilitaries are directed against civilians. The
    violent actions of the paramilitaries are aimed at obtaining greater socio-economic and
    political control over territory and populations. The paramilitaries still engage only
    infrequently in direct armed confrontations. Where they do so, detailed information
    regarding injuries and deaths occurring in combat is scarce and would not likely be
    reflected in the statistics. Because paramilitaries generally attack members of the
    civilian population who are not directly participating in the hostilities, almost all acts
    of violence attributable to paramilitary groups constitute violations of international
    humanitarian law and, in those cases involving State responsibility, human rights law.( 142 )
 4. Massacres 275. The Commission has received information indicating that
    paramilitary groups commit numerous massacres of the civilian population each year.
    According to statistics provided to the Commission, paramilitary groups committed 16 of
    the 48 massacres carried out in 1995.( 143 )
    Paramilitary groups were responsible for a significant increase in the overall number of
    massacres since 1995. Paramilitary groups were allegedly responsible for 84% of the 185
    massacres committed in 1997 with social and political motivation.( 144 )
 
 276. The massacres described above, in Mapiripán and Putumayo, are two
    examples of the type of mass killings carried out by the paramilitaries. Upon the
    Commission's arrival in Colombia in December of 1997, the press, non-governmental
    organizations and civil society were focused on recent massacres in the Departments of
    Antioquia, Cundinamarca and Cesar.
 
 277. Between October 25 and November 3, 1997, paramilitaries entered El Aro, in the municipality of
    Ituango, Antioquia. The paramilitaries rounded up the
    population in the main plaza and announced that they should abandon the area. After
    carrying out the massacre of approximately 15 persons, members of the paramilitary groups
    burned down numerous structures in the community, including approximately 40 homes. Army
    officials allegedly remained on the periphery of the town during the paramilitary
    operation, even turning back villagers who attempted to flee. Witnesses from the area
    stated that, during their several-day stay in El Aro, members of the paramilitary group
    stole cattle. They then passed through the center of the nearby community of Valdivia to
    take the cattle out. According to these witnesses, when the paramilitaries herded the
    cattle through the center of Valdivia, representatives of the Army fired shots so that the
    residents would remain in their homes, allowing the paramilitaries to pass through without
    difficulty. Residents of El Aro stated that the October, 1997 attack on the town had been
    preceded by an incident the previous year in which members of paramilitaries entered the
    community with members of the Colombian Army. According to information provided by the
    National Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman and the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman
    for Medellín, only three families remained in the town after the October, 1997 attack.( 145 )
 
 278. The leader of the ACCU, Carlos Castaño, acknowledged the
    responsibility of his group for the massacre in El Aro, arguing that it was an important
    strategic gain, because armed dissident groups plan and launch attacks from this area.
    Carlos Castaño announced that he sought control over the area known as the "Nudo de
    Paramillo" by December. The Nudo de Paramillo is located in northern Antioquia and
    borders on areas presumably owned by the Castaño family. This area also serves as an
    entrance into the combative Urabá region of Antioquia.
 
 279. After Castaño's announcement, his paramilitary groups proceeded
    to perpetrate additional massacres of civilians to achieve the control sought. In
    November, the ACCU attacked the small towns in the municipality of Dabeiba, also in the
    Paramillo. In Dabeiba, the groups killed at least 16 persons, burned homes and forced 600
    peasants to flee the area. Residents of Dabeiba later announced that armed men had first
    arrived on July 20 to threaten the community, stating that its residents were guerrilla
    collaborators. After Dabeiba, the ACCU advanced to the area known as Peque. In the first
    community which the paramilitaries entered in Peque, they killed four persons and burned
    down the local school, provoking the mass displacement of almost 1,500 persons. Despite
    the public announcements by the ACCU regarding their intent to secure these areas, the
    State's public security forces took no preventive actions to halt these attacks.
 
 280. Similarly, on November 21, 1997, paramilitary groups killed 14
    peasants in La Horqueta, Department of Cundinamarca. On November 27, 1997, seven peasants
    in Ciénaga, Department of Magdalena were killed by paramilitaries. Also, during the
    Commission's visit itself, between December 1 and 2, paramilitary groups entered three
    communities in southern Cesar and killed eight persons.
 
 281. These and other massacres committed shortly before the
    Commission's visit are but a few of the numerous massacres authored by paramilitary
    groups. The paramilitaries have also carried out several well-known and horrifying
    massacres in Segovia, Department of Antioquia.
 
 282. For example, on April 22, 1996, a paramilitary group entered
    Segovia at approximately 8:30 p.m. The commander of the local Bombona Battalion of the
    Colombian Army, Captain Rodrigo Cañas, purportedly provided for the transportation of the
    paramilitaries to Segovia. The group entered a billiard hall and fired automatic weapons
    at its patrons. This action resulted in seven deaths and injury to eight other persons,
    one of whom subsequently died while receiving medical attention. The paramilitary group
    proceeded to enter the El Tigrillo neighborhood. Its members threw two grenades at another
    billiard hall and shot at those inside. Two persons died at the scene and three more were
    killed while receiving medical attention. Seven other individuals received injuries. The
    paramilitary group then left the town by the main highway. During their presence in the
    town, the paramilitaries passed by the Police station in the main plaza and by military
    posts. Yet, they had no difficulty in carrying out their acts and then leaving the town
    without the slightest interference or resistance by these State agents. The Army acquitted
    local military commander, Captain Cañas, of any wrongdoing. However, the Office of the
    Prosecutor General of the Nation did bring charges against Captain Cañas for homicide and
    the formation of paramilitary groups.
 
 283. Significantly, paramilitary groups carried out a similar massacre
    in Segovia in November of 1988, resulting in the death of 43 individuals, including three
    children. Residents of the area have always suggested that the Military Forces were
    involved in that massacre. The Colombian justice system recently convicted five Army
    officials for their involvement with the paramilitaries in the planning and execution of
    the massacre.
 
 284. During its on-site visit, the Commission received significant oral
    and written testimony regarding massacres committed by paramilitary groups in the
    municipality of San Roque, Department of Antioquia. The municipality of San Roque includes
    the towns of San Roque, Cristales and San José del Nus and other even smaller
    communities. Armed dissident groups had a strong presence in this area over the last
    decade and, through violence and intimidation, had managed to obtain a significant degree
    of control over the mentioned communities.
 
 285. Residents of this area have informed the Commission that
    paramilitary groups entered the area on June 17, 1996, making their presence known first
    in San José del Nus. They then entered the community of Diluvio where they gathered the
    residents together, identified themselves as a self-defense group and threatened to
    "finish off" all those who sold supplies or provided transportation in public
    buses to members of armed dissident groups. With a list in hand, they went to the home of
    a local merchant, Alfonso Zuleta. They took Mr. Zuleta out of his home, tied his hands and
    then shot him. The paramilitaries announced that this was just a lesson and that they
    would return to "clean the area." They took three other merchants with them out
    of the community. The lifeless bodies of these other three victims were found later that
    day. The army entered the area the following day and began entering and inspecting homes,
    suggesting that members of armed dissident groups were allegedly in the area.
 
 286. The same paramilitary group again entered the area again, on
    September 14, 1996, killing five more persons. One of the victims, Carlos Valencia
    Osorio,
    managed the local sugar mill. The paramilitaries tortured Mr. Valencia before killing him,
    because he gave them sugar. The paramilitaries argued that, if he gave sugar to them, he
    must also certainly have given sugar to armed dissidents. On this occasion as previously,
    the members of the paramilitary group wore military-style clothing and moved from
    community to community without any difficulty, despite the presence of Army and civilian
    authorities in the area.
 
 287. The commander of the Fourteenth Brigade at the time of the events,
    Colonel Carlos Enrique Vargas Forero, stated publicly that the situation in San Roque and
    Cristales was completely normal and that the presence of armed dissident groups created
    the only public order problem in the area. Members of the community informed the
    Commission that it is common knowledge that the paramilitaries have remained present in
    the area and have set up a post on the road leading out of Cristales. Yet, no authorities
    have made any effort to arrest them. The Commission mentioned the complaints regarding the
    area of San Roque and Cristales to then Governor of Antioquia, Alvaro Uribe
    Vélez.
    Governor Uribe responded by simply stating that armed dissident groups had been present in
    the area for years and nobody had complained, apparently implying that the paramilitary
    attacks were deserved or necessary or somehow not worthy of attention.
 
 288. The paramilitaries have also made good on their promise to commit
    additional massacres similar to that in Mapiripán. On May 4, 1998, members of the ACCU
    paramilitary group entered into Puerto Alvira, a village of about 1,200 inhabitants in the
    municipality of Mapiripán. List in hand, members of the paramilitary group
    extrajudicially executed approximately 21 persons. The victims included a four-year-old
    girl. Some of the victims' bodies were drenched with gasoline and burned. The paramilitary
    group warned the residents of Puerto Alvira that they would suffer further attacks if they
    did not leave the town in eight days, causing the exodus of most of the villagers.
    Apparently the Colombian Military Forces and other authorities had again failed to take
    any steps to prevent this massacre despite Carlos Castaño's warning after Mapiripán that
    further massacres would take place in the area.
 
 289. As the Commission noted above, the right to life remains protected
    even in time of armed conflicts. Paramilitary massacres of civilians constitute grave
    violations of international humanitarian law. In addition, where paramilitary groups carry
    out massacres with the collaboration, support or acquiescence of State agents, they also
    constitute grave violations of the right to life, under human rights law, and result in
    State responsibility for those violations. The Commission expresses its most serious
    condemnation of the numerous horrible massacres committed by paramilitary groups in
    Colombia.
 
 [ Table of Contents
    | Previous |
    Next ]
         
 (
       131 )  The
      Commission wishes to emphasize that treating paramilitary groups as parties to the
      internal armed conflict in Colombia does not give them special status or recognition. This
      treatment means only that they are bound by the norms of international humanitarian law.
      Common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions explicitly provides that the application of the
      laws of war in no way changes the legal status of the parties to the conflict. By
      referencing international humanitarian law in analyzing the acts of paramilitary groups in
      Colombia, the Commission does not entail recognition of political or legal status for
      these groups. (
       132 )  See
      "Fiscal colombiano denuncia complacencia con paramilitares", El Universal,
      Caracas, Venezuela, January 22, 1999. (
       133 )  See Presidential
      Decree No. 2895, December 3, 1997. (
       134 )  See
      "Operations Results for the Military Forces, National Police and DAS against
      Organized Crime Groups in 1998." (
       135 )  See Report
      Regarding the Field Work of the Commission for the Verification of the Agreements Signed
      on July 5, 1996 between the Government and the Peasants who Peacefully Occupied the
      "Antonio Roldán Betancur" Coliseum in Apartado, at 5. This commission included
      representatives from the Ministry of the Interior, the Office of the Presidential Human
      Rights Adviser and the Office of the Procurator General, among others. (
       136 )  See
      "Final Report of the Commission for Verifying the Violent Actors in Urabá," at
      34-36. This commission included representatives from the Office of the Procurator General
      of the Nation, the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation and others. (
       137 )  See
      El Tiempo, "Urabá: el fin de la pesadilla", September 28, 1997. (
       138 )  See
      "Capturan a diez presuntos 'paras,'" El Tiempo, September 9, 1998. (
       139 )  See
      1995 Comisión Colombiana Report, at 4. (
       140 )  See
      1996 Comisión Colombiana Report, at 6. (
       141 )  See
      Balance Sheet, at 4. (
       142 )  To the
      extent that these groups increasingly engage in armed confrontations with armed dissident
      groups, further analysis will be required to determine whether their actions are in
      conformity with international humanitarian law. The Commission notes that, even if certain
      eventual acts of the paramilitaries were considered to be legitimate pursuant to
      international humanitarian law, the State would of course still have the right and duty to
      prosecute members of these illegal groups who commit acts of violence. This duty to
      prosecute would exist even where members of the paramilitary groups killed members of
      armed dissident groups. The paramilitary groups are not duly authorized by the State to
      combat armed dissident groups. For this same reason, in those potential cases where
      paramilitaries might undertake illegal acts of violence against armed dissidents with
      State support or protection, the State would be responsible internationally for human
      rights violations. (
       143 )  See
      1995 Comisión Colombiana Report, at 23. (
       144 )  See
      Balance Sheet, at 6. (
       145 )  See
      Draft Report: Special Visit to the Community of El Aro, Municipality of Ituango,
      Antioquia, November 28, 1997 |