July, 07 2010, 03:39pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Diana Duarte, Media Coordinator,Phone: +1 212 627 0444,Email:,media@madre.org
Using International Law to Wage Peace in Colombia
In recent decades, human rights advocates have won
passage of a system of international human rights treaties, helping to
address a wide range of social justice concerns. More and
more, local activists are devising ways to use these international
standards to make real change at home.
WASHINGTON
In recent decades, human rights advocates have won
passage of a system of international human rights treaties, helping to
address a wide range of social justice concerns. More and
more, local activists are devising ways to use these international
standards to make real change at home.
Each
major international human rights treaty has a corresponding "treaty
body" or committee responsible for monitoring whether its members are
fulfilling their obligations. One of these important
treaties is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), which guarantees such rights as the right to life, the right to
be free from torture and the right to protection from unlawful
imprisonment. The treaty body for the ICCPR is the Human
Rights Committee, and as a member state, Colombia must regularly defend
its record before that committee.
In July
2010, women human rights advocates will have the opportunity to
participate in that international review of Colombia's record. The
people of Colombia have faced decades of armed conflict and rampant
human rights violations. MADRE has joined with our partner
organizations in Colombia to submit a report to the Human Rights
Committee that gives voice to those lived experiences.
The sections below outline the evidence that we have
gathered to challenge any attempt to diminish the severity of the human
rights crises in Colombia. We call on the Human Rights
Committee to respect the calls of Colombian women human rights advocates
and to demand concrete action from the Colombian government.
The Contours of Colombia's Conflict
- For
over 40 years, Colombians have endured an armed conflict over their
country's highly concentrated sources of natural wealth, especially
land.
- In the mid-1960s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces
of Colombia (FARC) arose as a peasant movement demanding land
redistribution and social reform from the government.
- Since
the 1990s, the conflict has been a three-way war: the FARC is
battling the government; the government is fighting to eliminate
the FARC; and brutal paramilitary groups function symbiotically
with the government and Army to protect the interests of powerful
elites.
- Instead of battling one another directly,
Colombia's armed groups usually attack civilians suspected of
siding with their enemy. The main victims of the conflict are women
and families, hundreds of thousands of whom have been assaulted,
displaced from their homes or killed.
For
more information, read MADRE
Talking Points: The Role of the US in Colombia's Conflict.
Forced Displacement and the Right
to Land of Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Colombians
- Under
Colombia's Constitution, Indigenous Peoples and Afro-Colombians have
been granted recognition of their collective rights to their land.
About 28%
of the Colombian territory has been recognized as belonging to
Indigenous Peoples.
- However, these communities have
long suffered sizable losses of lands from forced displacement
caused by the internal armed conflict and by projects relating to
infrastructure and natural resource exploitation.
- Armed groups in Colombia have long sought control over the
lands of Afro-Colombians and Indigenous Peoples for military and economic reasons, forcing them to either
collaborate with the armed groups or abandon their lands.
- In
2009, the Colombian Constitutional
Court warned that at least 34 Indigenous
Peoples "are in danger of cultural or physical extermination due
to the internal armed conflict."
- A
Snapshot of the Reality: Indigenous Peoples and
Afro-Colombians have been denied their right to land, guaranteed in
Colombian and international law, and the Colombian government has
taken no measures to redress this. The Indigenous Embera
Katio People have been displaced from their lands by the
construction of the Urra dam, losing their connection to their
traditional ways of life. The Afro-Colombian communities
of the Curvarado and Jiguamiando river basins have struggled
against the installment of palm plantations in their territories
since the 1990s, and as a result, they have been targeted by
paramilitaries.
Forced Displacement of Women
- Almost 60% of
displaced women have no job or income. In
2008, studies reported that in larger cities, 60% of
all displaced households are experiencing or are at risk of food
insecurity, and in
smaller cities the rate rises to about 71%.
- Difficulty finding work, together with lack of access to
food, housing, health care and education, entrenches poverty and
social exclusion among both displaced Indigenous and Afro-Colombian
women.
- Indigenous
and Afro-Colombian women face racism, as well as low levels of
education and poverty which perpetuates displacement, threatens their access to work, pursuit of cultural practices,
participation in community life and safety from gender violence.
- Furthermore, displacement cuts off access to traditional
foods and medicines for Indigenous women. Traditional
organizational processes, languages, practices and teachings are
weakened and in some cases lost.
Reproductive
Health
- In May 2006, the Colombian Constitutional Court
partially decriminalized abortion, making exceptions for cases of
documented rape, danger to the physical or mental health of the
woman and fetal abnormality.
- However,
since that decision, medical personnel and health care institutions
have misused the principle of "conscientious objection," which
allows for a medical provider to cite their conscience in denying a
woman an abortion. This has led to mistreatment
of and discrimination against women seeking reproductive health
services. Some clinics have made their doctors sign
blanket declarations of "conscientious objection" to refuse to
provide abortion services altogether.
- Alejandro Ordonez, the
Colombian official responsible for supervising compliance with the
Constitution and for protecting human rights, is also responsible for
prosecuting and punishing health care providers who violate a
woman's right to access safe and legal abortions. Yet,
he has refused to investigate the human rights violation
constituted by the misuse of the "conscientious objection"
exception.
- In a number of cases, judges have refused to rule
on cases relating to the misuse of "conscientious objection" to
deny a woman's access to abortion. Moreover, Ordonez
has ordered public officials to ignore Colombian laws that
decriminalize abortion.
- Individual doctors who object to
performing abortions have the legal duty to refer the woman to a
doctor who will carry out the procedure.
- Women in
Colombia experience both physical and mental suffering as a result of
the denial of the right to therapeutic abortion, including in cases
in which pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. Women
experiencing complications of pregnancy and needing therapeutic
abortion are forced to suffer from painful, frightening and
life-threatening conditions, often for many months.
- Women
experiencing unsafe abortions or other obstetric emergencies and who are
often in extreme pain and require immediate treatment also fear
the consequence of prosecution for seeking out an illegal abortion.
Added to the fear of being prosecuted is the fear that needed
treatment will be denied by doctors citing "conscientious
objection."
- A Snapshot of the Reality: Blanca,
a 13-year old girl who was raped and as a result became pregnant,
was sent to seven different health care providers, all of whom
refused to provide an abortion, arguing conscientious objection and
willfully ignoring their obligation to immediately refer her to an
adequate provider. The girl was ultimately forced to carry out a
high-risk pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. She suffered
permanent health consequences including scoliosis and lung damage.
Sexual Violence
- In
2006, the Committee on the Rights of Children stated that the
widespread discrimination against women in Colombia puts them at
greater risk of recruitment by armed forces as well as sexual
exploitation, internal displacement and continued violation of
their rights.
- In 2006,
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Rapporteur stated, "The
violence and discrimination against women is not solely the
product of the armed conflict-they are fixtures in
the lives of women during times of peace that worsen and degenerate
during the internal strife."
- Sexualized
violence is one of the primary causes of the forced displacement
of women in Colombia. It is estimated that two out of
every ten women are forced
to leave their homes because of gender violence.
- An
analysis by two Colombian women's organizations established that acts
of sexual violence have occurred in a range of conflict-related
situations, such as during active attacks, as a result of
forced displacement, or targeting women within armed groups as a
means of control.
- Girl members of illegal armed
groups are particularly vulnerable to grave sexual violence. They
are forced to use inadequate and often harmful methods of
contraception and forced
to have an abortion if they become pregnant.
- A
Snapshot of the Reality: One former girl child
soldier told the story that her commanding officer one day
announced that he would separate the virgins from the other girls.
They were forced to have sex with the commanding officers.
Many girls later testified that they knew their lives were
at stake and that their choices were either to be raped or killed.
Threats
against Women Human Rights Defenders
- Patterns
of threats and harassment against human rights defenders, and
often their families, continue to worsen in Colombia. Journalists,
trade unionists, magistrates, lawyers, student and youth activists,
women defenders, Indigenous and Afro-Colombian leaders suffer
physical violence and threats because of their legitimate efforts
to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms.
- When community members are
perceived to sympathize with adversary groups, often simply for not
showing enough resistance, they are punished by paramilitaries and
guerrilla groups. In testimonies gathered by MADRE
and our sister organization Taller de Vida, community leaders
shared stories of harassment and threats made against their life,
forcing them to flee their homes on little or no notice, leaving
all they own behind.
- Extrajudicial executions have
been a widely documented practice committed by military units
across the country. Following a
fact-finding mission to Colombia in June 2009, Phillip Alston, the
Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, stated
that extrajudicial killings of women activists are used
"especially in order to control and instill fear in rural
populations, to intimidate elected officials, to punish those
alleged to be collaborating with the government, or to promote
criminal objectives." - Instead
of protecting the honor and reputation of its citizens, the Government
of Colombia is actively complicit in stigmatizing those who defend human
rights. Women human rights defenders have been accused
by high-level officials of being linked to guerrillas or terrorists. Government
officials are making public accusations to sully the reputations of
independent women's rights activists.
- Other women human rights
defenders have faced death threats, lost family
members to arbitrary killings, or have been jailed without just
cause because of their work defending against and exposing human
rights violations in Colombia.
- A
Snapshot of the Reality: On June 14th, 2010, Aida
Quilcue, an Indigenous women's human rights defender received a
message threatening the lives of members of various Colombian human
rights organizations. The message was sent after activists organized a
public hearing to denounce human rights violations committed
against Indigenous Peoples by the government security forces,
paramilitaries and the FARC.
The Use of
Child Soldiers
- In 1999, Colombia
outlawed the use of child soldiers in its army. This means that
conscripts must be at least 18 years of age.
- Researchers
from MADRE conducted over 30 interviews with former child solders
from the capital city of Bogota and the city of Pereira. The age of
recruitment ranged from 10 to 17 years of age and participation
varied through most of the identified armed groups in Colombia.
- Recruitment
stories ranged from joining armed groups voluntarily due to
abandonment, being orphaned, or fleeing domestic or sexual violence
or other issues at home. Some children were lured into joining
armed groups with promises of a better life only to find the
promises were false and that they faced the punishment of death if
they tried to escape.
- Since
2006, the Attorney-General's Office has found
109 bodies of children - mainly victims of armed groups - in
clandestine graves. According to testimonies of former child soldiers,
children recruited by armed groups were frequently killed for
"insubordination" ranging from stealing food from the group's reserves
to trying to escape.
- A Snapshot of the
Reality: One former child soldier reported
that a friend who in desperation stole sugar from the food supplies was
made to face a "War Council." Members of the
armed group were directed to vote on whether or not his punishment
should be death. The next day, they dug a hole in the
ground and shot and killed him.
What
Needs to Change
The
Colombian Government must:
- Restore communities to their
lands and respect the collective land ownership of Afro-Colombians
and Indigenous Peoples. Communities must be
guaranteed the right to prior consultation and consent with regard
to massive infrastructure and natural resource exploitation
projects. The government must guarantee that policies
to ensure the safe return of displaced peoples are implemented
promptly and with care.
- Protect
a woman's right to access safe and legal abortion.
This means that health care providers may not illegally
claim "conscientious objection," and judges may not refuse judgment
on cases where women have been denied abortions. Furthermore,
women must be guaranteed effective access to sexual and
reproductive healthcare information and services - especially young
women and rural women.
- Address
the root causes of sexual violence against women and ensure their
access to health, education and other necessary social services.
The state must prioritize its responsibility to
investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of sexual violence
and to fund special support services for survivors of such
violence.
- End stigma against human
rights defenders and initiate investigations to seek justice for
those who have been attacked and killed. Human
rights defenders deserve not only physical protection, but the
freedom to participate in politics at the local and national
levels.
- Stop the use of child
soldiers. Government policies must address risk
factors that make children vulnerable to recruitment and institute
programs that support children facing abuse at home, that address
the basic needs of displaced families and that provide training to
teachers to recognize warning signs.
MADRE is an international women's human rights organization that partners with community-based women's groups to advance women's human rights, challenge injustice and create social change in contexts of war, conflict, disaster and their aftermath. MADRE advocates for a world in which all people enjoy individual and collective human rights; natural resources are shared equitably and sustainably; women participate effectively in all aspects of society; and all people have a meaningful say in policies that affect their lives. For more information about MADRE, visit www.madre.org.
LATEST NEWS
House Dems Voice 'Deep Concern' Over Biden Claim That Israel Is Legally Using US Arms
A letter from 26 lawmakers notes the "stark differences and gaps" between what Biden administration officials say and the opinions of "prominent experts and global institutions" accusing Israel of genocide.
Apr 16, 2024
More than two dozen House Democrats on Tuesday challenged the Biden administration's claim that Israel is using U.S.-supplied weapons in compliance with domestic and international law—an assertion made amid an ongoing World Court probe of "plausibly" genocidal Israeli policies and practices in Gaza.
Citing "mounting credible and deeply troubling reports and allegations" of human rights crimes committed by Israeli troops in Gaza and soldiers and settlers in the occupied West Bank, 26 congressional Democrats led by Texas Reps. Veronica Escobar—who co-chairs President Joe Biden's reelection campaign—and Joaquin Castro asked U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines "whether and how" their agencies determined Israel is lawfully using arms provided by Washington.
"We write to express our deep concern regarding the U.S. Department of State's recent comments regarding assurances from the Israeli government, under National Security Memorandum (NSM) 20, that the Israeli government is using U.S.-origin weapons in full compliance with relevant U.S. and international law and is not restricting the delivery of humanitarian assistance," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the Cabinet members.
The letter acknowledges the "grave concerns" of institutions and experts around the world regarding Israel's "conduct throughout the war in Gaza, its policies regarding civilian harm and military targeting, unauthorized expansion of settlements and settler violence in the West Bank, and potential use of U.S. arms by settlers, in additional to limitations on humanitarian aid supported by the U.S."
The legislators noted Israeli attacks on aid convoys, workers, and recipients—like the February 29 "
Flour Massacre" in which nearly 900 starving Palestinians were killed or wounded at a food distribution site—and "the closure of vital border crossings" as Gazan children starve to death as causes for serious concern.
While the lawmakers didn't mention the International Court of Justice's January 26
preliminary finding that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza, their letter highlights the "stark differences and gaps in the statements" made by Biden administration officials and "those made by prominent experts and global institutions"—many of whom accuse Israel of genocide.
The lawmakers' letter came amid reports of fresh Israeli atrocities, including a drone strike on a playground in the Maghazi refugee camp in northern Gaza that killed at least 11 children. Eyewitnesses described a "horrific scene of children torn apart."
While Biden has called out Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" in Gaza—much of it carried out using U.S.-supplied warplanes and munitions including 2,000-pound bombs that can level whole city blocks—his administration has approved more than 100 arms sales to Israel, has repeatedly sidestepped Congress to fast-track emergency armed aid, and is seeking to provide the key ally with billions of dollars in addition weaponry atop the nearly $4 billion it gets annually from Washington.
This, despite multiple federal laws—and the administration's own rules— prohibiting U.S. arms transfers to human rights violators.
According to Palestinian and international officials, more than 110,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since October 7. Most of the dead are women and children. At least 7,000 Palestinians are also missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed-out homes and other buildings.
Around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people have been forcibly displaced in what many Palestinians are calling a second Nakba, a reference to the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine during the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
A growing number of not only progressive lawmakers but also mainstream Democrats are calling for a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel.
On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who was criticized earlier in the war for not calling for a cease-fire—stood beside a photo of a starving Gazan girl while declaring "no more money for" the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his "war machine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Weasel Words': Julian Assange's Wife Slams US Assurances to UK
"The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family's extreme distress about his future—his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in U.S. prison for publishing award-winning journalism."
Apr 16, 2024
The wife of jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sharply criticized "assurances" the U.S. government made as the U.K. High Court considers allowing the 52-year-old Australian's extradition to the United States, where he faces 175 years in prison.
The U.S. document states that if extradited, "Assange will have the ability to raise and seek to rely upon at trial (which includes any sentencing hearing) the rights and protections given under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States," though it points out that "a decision as to the applicability of the First Amendment is exclusively within the purview of the U.S. courts."
"A sentence of death will neither be sought nor imposed on Assange," the document adds, noting that he has not been charged with any offense for which that is a possible punishment. It comes after the U.K. court ruled last month that the Biden administration had until Tuesday to confirm that he wouldn't face the death penalty and if it did not, he could continue appealing his extradition.
Responding on social media, his wife, Stella Assange—who is an attorney—blasted the U.S. assurances as "weasel words."
"The United States has issued a nonassurance in relation to the First Amendment, and a standard assurance in relation to the death penalty," she said. "It makes no undertaking to withdraw the prosecution's previous assertion that Julian has no First Amendment rights because he is not a U.S citizen."
"The Biden administration must drop this dangerous prosecution before it is too late."
"Instead, the U.S. has limited itself to blatant weasel words claiming that Julian can 'seek to raise' the First Amendment if extradited," she added. "The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family's extreme distress about his future—his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in U.S. prison for publishing award-winning journalism. The Biden administration must drop this dangerous prosecution before it is too late."
The U.K. court's next hearing is scheduled for May 20. Last week, reporters asked U.S. President Joe Biden about requests from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and members of the country's Parliament to drop the extradition effort and charges. He said that "we're considering it."
So far, the Biden administration has ignored significant pressure from Australian and U.S. politicians as well as human rights and press freedom groups, and continued to pursue the extradition of Julian Assange, who was charged under former President Donald Trump—the Republican expected to face the Democratic president in the November election.
Assange was charged under the Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for publishing classified documents including the "Collateral Murder" video and the Afghan and Iraq war logs. Since British authorities dragged Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London—where he lived with political asylum for seven years—he has been jailed in the city's Belmarsh Prison.
The WikiLeaks founder's wife, with whom he has two children, was not alone in condemning the U.S. assurances on Tuesday.
"This 'assurance' should make journalists even more worried about how the Assange prosecution could impact press freedom in the U.S. and globally. The U.K. should grant Assange's appeal and refuse to extradite him," said the Freedom of the Press Foundation. "The U.S. doesn't disclaim the ability to argue that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Assange because of his nationality or other reasons, or for a court to rule against a First Amendment challenge to his prosecution."
Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, similarly said that "no one who cares about press freedom should take any comfort at all from the United States' assurance that Assange will be permitted to 'rely upon' the First Amendment."
"If the prosecution goes forward, the U.S. government will be trying to persuade American courts that the First Amendment poses no bar to the prosecution of a publisher under the Espionage Act," Jaffer warned. "And if the government is successful, no journalist will ever again be able to publish U.S. government secrets without risking her liberty."
"So the government's First Amendment assurances aren't responsive at all to the concerns that press freedom advocates have been raising," he concluded. "This case poses essentially the same threat to press freedom today as it did yesterday."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Workers Stage Sit-Ins to Demand Google End Israeli Cloud Contract
"Just as people of conscience demanded institutions cut ties with apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, the time is now to rise up in support of Palestinian human rights," said Google employees in an open letter.
Apr 16, 2024
Following recent reports that Google may soon expand its tech collaboration with the Israeli government, dozens of the company's employees on Tuesday entered its offices in New York City and Sunnyvale, California and announced that they wouldn't leave until executives pull out of its $1.2 billion cloud services and data contract with the country.
The No Tech for Apartheid coalition—including the Muslim-led MPower Change and the Jewish-led Jewish Voice for Peace—organized the sit-in, which marks an escalation in Google workers' protests against Project Nimbus, the 2021 contract under which Google and Amazon provide cloud infrastructure across Israel's government.
The deal includes a stipulation that the companies cannot prevent Israel from using Project Nimbus for any government agency, including the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)—which means Google employees' work may be directly supporting the country's assault on the Gaza and its killing of at least 33,843 Palestinians since October.
"Workers will NOT allow business as usual while Google continues to profit from the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza," said MPower Change.
In Sunnyvale, workers began occupying the office of Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian, while employees in the company's New York office began a sit-in in a common space.
Outdoor rallies were also scheduled to take place in San Francisco and Seattle, with both Amazon and Google employees attending.
Former Google cloud software engineer Eddie Hatfield, who was fired last month for disrupting a Google Israel event, was among those who protested in New York.
The sit-ins came a week after Time magazine reported that Google has entered further negotiations with the Israeli government in recent weeks, even as international human rights experts raise alarm that Israeli officials have directly caused famine to take hold in parts of Gaza by blocking humanitarian aid.
No Tech for Apartheid released an open letter addressed to Kurian and other Google and Amazon executives, saying that as long as the companies' "tech continues to power the Israeli military and government, [they] are actively complicit in this genocide."
"Your workers do not want to be complicit in genocide," reads the letter, which has been signed by 93,000 supporters. "Just as people of conscience demanded institutions cut ties with apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, the time is now to rise up in support of Palestinian human rights, to end the Project Nimbus contract, and join calls to end the Israeli occupation and siege of Gaza. This has never been more urgent. We hope that you will take this opportunity to be on the right side of history. End the Project Nimbus contract and reestablish your companies' commitments to human rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular