June, 24 2015, 01:45pm EDT

Colombia: Top Brass Linked to Extrajudicial Executions
Generals, Colonels Implicated in ‘False Positive’ Killings
BOGOTA, Columbia
Extensive previously unpublished evidence implicates many Colombian army generals and colonels in widespread and systematic extrajudicial killings of civilians between 2002 and 2008, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 95-page report, "On Their Watch: Evidence of Senior Army Officers' Responsibility for False Positive Killings in Colombia," presents evidence strongly suggesting that numerous generals and colonels knew or should have known about "false positive" killings, and may have ordered or otherwise actively furthered them. Prosecutors are investigating at least 3,000 of these cases, in which army troops under pressure to boost body counts in their war against armed guerrilla groups killed civilians and reported them as combat fatalities. Hundreds of lower-ranking soldiers have been convicted, but just a handful of colonels and no generals.
"False positive killings amount to one of the worst episodes of mass atrocity in the Western Hemisphere in recent years, and there is mounting evidence that many senior army officers bear responsibility," said Jose Miguel Vivanco, executive Americas director at Human Rights Watch. "Yet the army officials in charge at the time of the killings have escaped justice and even ascended to the top of the military command, including the current heads of the army and armed forces."
A Human Rights Watch analysis of Attorney General's Office data shows that prosecutors have identified more than 180 battalions and other tactical units - attached to virtually all brigades and in every army division at the time - that allegedly committed extrajudicial killings between 2002 and 2008. Evidence detailed in the report shows that commanders of the brigades and tactical units responsible for a significant number of killings - as well as top army leaders - at least knew or should have known about the crimes, and therefore may be criminally liable as a matter of command responsibility.
Human Rights Watch also obtained recordings and transcriptions of testimony to prosecutors from military personnel implicated in false positives who reported that their superiors, including generals and colonels, allegedly knew of, or planned, ordered, or otherwise facilitated the crimes.
Some of the army officers who commanded the 11 brigades more closely analyzed in the report later became top military leaders. For example, prosecutors' data show they are investigating:
- At least 44 alleged extrajudicial killings by 4th Brigade troops during the period retired Gen. Mario Montoya commanded it. He became the army's top commander in 2006-2008;
- At least 113 alleged extrajudicial killings by 4th Brigade troops when retired Gen. Oscar Gonzalez Pena commanded it. He became the army's top commander in 2008-2010;
- At least 28 alleged extrajudicial killings by 4th Brigade troops when Gen. Juan Pablo Rodriguez Barragan commanded it. As the current commander of the armed forces, he is the country's top military official, and oversees all three military branches, including the army; and
- At least 48 alleged extrajudicial killings by 9th Brigade troops during the period Gen. Jaime Lasprilla Villamizar commanded it. He is now the army's top commander.
The report is based on a Human Rights Watch review of extensive, hereto unpublished, prosecutor's office data; criminal case files; witness testimony, much of it previously unpublished; judicially ordered recordings of retired Lt. Col. Robinson Gonzalez del Rio's phone conversations made by justice authorities after his arrest for false positives; and interviews with prosecutors, witnesses, victims' families, and their lawyers, among other sources.
"Prosecutors confront serious obstacles to advancing their cases, ranging from reprisals against key witnesses to a lack of cooperation by military authorities," Vivanco said. "And many - possibly hundreds - of false positive cases remain in the military justice system, which for all practical purposes guarantees impunity."
Human Rights Watch documented threats, attacks, and harassment against soldiers who have testified against superiors in false positive cases. On October 27, 2014, Nixon de Jesus Carcamo, who had confessed and had been providing information to prosecutors about his superiors' alleged role in false positive cases, was murdered in the 11th Brigade's military detention center.
Prosecutors told Human Rights Watch that military personnel often resist handing over army documents that are crucial to their investigations, such as those that ordered the supposed operations in which the executions occurred and certified payments to informants in the cases.
Moreover, despite repeated rulings of Colombia's Constitutional Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights calling for human rights violations to be exclusively investigated and tried by civilian justice authorities, prosecutors say that scores - possibly hundreds - of false positive cases remain in the military justice system. This poses a major impediment to accountability, especially given the evidence documented in the report that the military justice system failed to take basic steps to investigate false positives when most cases were under its jurisdiction, and that at least some military judges actively helped troops cover up the crimes.
Human Rights Watch reviewed judicially ordered audio recordings of Gonzalez del Rio's phone calls with a military judge and a man who appears to be a colonel linked to a senior office in the military justice system, both of whom offered to help him after he was arrested for false positives, further highlighting the system's lack of independence and credibility. The colonel appears to offer support for getting Gonzalez del Rio's case transferred from civilian to military courts, and expresses hope that he will soon be released from detention.
There have also been shortcomings within the Attorney General's Office, including overwhelming caseloads, as well as the distribution of cases from the same military unit among different prosecutors, which hinders contextualized investigations that are material to the prosecution of high-ranking perpetrators.
The Colombian government should order military authorities to cooperate in investigations, assign sufficient prosecutors to the cases, and protect witnesses and their families, Human Rights Watch said. It should also ensure that any transitional justice measures included in a peace agreement with armed guerrilla groups do not hinder accountability for false positives.
In 2012, Colombia enacted the Legal Framework for Peace, a constitutional amendment that paves the way for impunity for atrocities by guerrilla groups, paramilitaries, and the military if a peace agreement is reached with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas. The amendment empowers Congress to limit the scope of prosecutions for atrocities to individuals found "most responsible" and provide statutory immunity to everyone else; to exempt war crimes from criminal investigation if they are not determined to have been systematic; and to apply "alternative penalties" to all those convicted, including those deemed most responsible.
The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is monitoring false positive proceedings in Colombia and could open an investigation if it determines that national authorities are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate and prosecute them. The office has said with regard to the Legal Framework for Peace that a sentence that is grossly or manifestly inadequate would "vitiate the genuineness" of the proceeding. In other words, it could trigger an ICC investigation.
The Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC should continue to closely monitor proceedings in false positive cases, Human Rights Watch said.
The United States government should enforce human rights conditions on military aid to Colombia, including the requirement that human rights cases be "subject only to civilian jurisdiction" and that the military cooperate with prosecutors in such cases. In light of the evidence that these two conditions are not being met, the US should suspend the part of military aid that depends on Colombia's compliance with them, Human Rights Watch said.
"Colombia needs to ensure that any transitional justice measures enacted as part of a future peace agreement don't deny victims' families justice in false positive cases," Vivanco said. "If Colombia doesn't bring those most responsible to justice, the International Criminal Court should open a formal investigation."
Examples of Testimony Implicating Generals
- A former commander of troops in the 16th Brigade testified to prosecutors and before a judge that his brigade commander, Gen. Henry William Torres Escalante, ordered, planned, and covered up false positives. Prosecutors are investigating at least 66 alleged extrajudicial killings by 16th Brigade troops during the period Torres Escalante commanded it;
- Several soldiers and officers have provided testimony to prosecutors implicating Gonzalez Pena in at least having known about false positives as commander of the 4th Brigade and later as the head of the Joint Caribbean Command;
- Gonzalez del Rio, who has publicly admitted responsibility for at least 27 false positives, told prosecutors that several generals knew of, authorized, and/or covered up such crimes by his troops. His testimony named General Rodriguez Barragan, then-4th Brigade commander and now top commander of the armed forces, and retired General Hernando Perez Molina, then-3rd Division commander, among others; and
- According to Gonzalez del Rio's testimony to prosecutors, retired General Montoya, the army's top commander between February 2006 and November 2008, pressured subordinate commanders to increase body counts, punished them for failing to do so, and was the principal "motivator" for false positives. In testimony to the prosecutor's office, another senior army officer who has confessed to false positives blamed the killings on Montoya's "policy" of demanding combat kills.
Reprisals Against Witnesses
- On October 27, 2014, Carcamo was murdered in the 11th Brigade's military detention center, where he was being held on false positive charges. Eleven days earlier, he told prosecutors that he feared for his life and that if he was killed, the people he was accusing were responsible;
- There is compelling evidence that the 2013 rape of a soldier's wife by unidentified men was in retaliation for the soldier's testimony against an army colonel. The soldier, who has also received death threats, is a key witness in false positive cases against the colonel and other officers and soldiers; and
- Sergeant Carlos Eduardo Mora's testimony has contributed to the conviction of a lieutenant colonel and numerous other soldiers for false positives. In retaliation, he has received death threats, and senior army officers have harassed and sought to stigmatize him. He reported that in 2013, army officials attempted to check him into a psychiatric clinic against his will, apparently trying to discredit him, and that in 2014, a general made statements in front of him and a large group of fellow army counterintelligence personnel strongly insinuating that he was a "traitor." In April 2015, the army opened a disciplinary investigation against him for making statements to the media about false positives - and the abuse he has been subject to as a witness - without the authorization of his superiors.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
ICE's 'Frightening' Facial Recognition App is Scanning US Citizens Without Their Consent
"An ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," said the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Nov 01, 2025
Immigration agents are using facial recognition software as "definitive" evidence to determine immigration status and is collecting data from US citizens without their consent. In some cases, agents may detain US citizens, including ones who can provide their birth certificates, if the app says they are in the country illegally.
These are a few of the findings from a series of articles published this past week by 404 Media, which has obtained documents and video evidence showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are using a smartphone app in the field during immigration stops, scanning the faces of people on the street to verify their citizenship.
The report found that agents frequently conduct stops that "seem to have little justification beyond the color of someone’s skin... then look up more information on that person, including their identity and potentially their immigration status."
While it is not clear what application the agencies are using, 404 previously reported that ICE is using an app called Mobile Fortify that allows ICE to simply point a camera at a person on the street. The photos are then compared with a bank of more than 200 million images and dozens of government databases to determine info about the person, including their name, date of birth, nationality, and information about their immigration status.
On Friday, 404 published an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which stated that "ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection." The document also states that the image of any face that agents scan, including those of US citizens, will be stored for 15 years.
The outlet identified several videos that have been posted to social media of immigration officials using the technology.
In one, taken in Chicago, armed agents in sunglasses and face coverings are shown accosting a pair of Hispanic teenagers on bicycles, asking where they are from. The 16-year-old boy who filmed the encounter said he is "from here"—an American citizen—but that he only has a school ID on him. The officer tells the boy he'll be allowed to leave if he'll "do a facial." The other officer then snaps a photo of him with a phone camera and asks his name.
In another video, also in Chicago, agents are shown surrounding a driver, who declines to show his ID. Without asking, one officer points his phone at the man. "I’m an American citizen, so leave me alone,” the driver says. "Alright, we just got to verify that,” the officer responds.
Even if the people approached in these videos had produced identification proving their citizenship, there's no guarantee that agents would have accepted it, especially if the app gave them information to the contrary.
On Wednesday, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told 404 that ICE agents will even trust the app's results over a person's government documents.
“ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,” he said.
This is despite the fact that, as Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404, “face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country."
Thompson said: "ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
According to an investigation published in October by ProPublica, more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, often in squalid conditions, since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In many of these cases, these individuals have been detained because agents wrongly claimed the documents proving their citizenship are false.
During a press conference this week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denied this reality, stating that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade.
"We focus on those who are here illegally," she said.
But as DHS's internal document explains, facial recognition software is necessary in the first place because "ICE agents do not know an individual's citizenship at the time of the initial encounter."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explains that the use of such technology suggests that ICE's operations are not "highly targeted raids," as it likes to portray, but instead "random fishing expeditions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite Court Rulings, Trump Refuses to Pay Out Food Stamp Benefits to Tens of Millions
"The administration has chosen to hold food for more than forty million vulnerable people hostage to try to force Democrats to capitulate without negotiations," says one Georgetown law professor.
Nov 01, 2025
Two federal judges have said the Trump administration cannot use the government shutdown to suspend food assistance for 42 million Americans. But hours into Saturday, when payments were due to be disbursed, President Donald Trump appears to be defying the ruling, potentially leaving millions unable to afford this month's grocery bills.
A pair of federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled Friday that the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) freeze on benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, was unlawful and that the department must use money from a contingency fund of $6 billion to pay for at least a portion of the roughly $8 billion meant to be disbursed this month.
“There is no doubt that the six billion dollars in contingency funds are appropriated funds that are without a doubt necessary to carry out the program’s operation,” said US District Judge McConnell of Rhode Island in his oral ruling. “The shutdown of the government through funding doesn’t do away with SNAP. It just does away with the funding of it. There could be no greater necessity than the prohibition across the board of funds for the program’s operations.”
McConnell added: “There is no doubt, and it is beyond argument, that irreparable harm will begin to occur if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food for their family."
SNAP benefits are available to people whose monthly incomes fall below 130% of the federal poverty line. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children. According to USDA research, cited by the Washington Post, those who receive SNAP benefits rely on it for 63% of their groceries, with the poorest, who make below 50% of the poverty line, relying on it for as much as 80%.
McConnell shot down the administration's contention that the contingency funds may be needed for some other hypothetical emergency in the future, saying "It’s clear that when compared to the millions of people that will go without funds for food versus the agency’s desire not to use contingency funds in case there’s a hurricane need, the balances of those equities clearly goes on the side of ensuring that people are fed."
While the judge in Massachusetts, Indira Talwani, ruled that Trump merely had to use the contingency funds to fund as much of the program as possible, McConnell went further, saying that in addition, they had to tap other sources of funding to disburse benefits in full, and do so "as soon as possible." Both judges gave the administration until Monday to provide updates on how it planned to follow the ruling.
However, after the ruling on Friday, Trump insisted on social media that "government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do."
He added: "I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible."
Attorney and activist Miles Mogulescu pointed out in Common Dreams that, "until a few days ago, even the Trump administration agreed that these funds should be used to continue SNAP funding during the shutdown."
On September 30, the day before the shutdown began, the USDA posted a 55-page "Lapse of Funding" plan to its website, which plainly stated that if the government were to shut down, "the department will continue operations related to... core nutrition safety net programs.”
But this week, USDA abruptly deleted the file and posted a new memo that concocted a new legal reality out of whole cloth, stating that “due to Congressional Democrats’ refusal to pass a clean continuing resolution (CR), approximately 42 million individuals will not receive SNAP benefits come November 1st.”
As Mogulescu notes: "The new memo cited absolutely no law supporting its position. Instead, it made up a rule claiming that the 'contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exist.'"
Sharon Parrott, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who previously served as an official in the White House Office of Management, said last week that it's "unequivocally false" that the administration's hands are tied.
"I know from experience that the federal government has the authority and the tools it needs during a shutdown to get these SNAP funds to families," Parrott said. "Even at this late date, the professionals at the Department of Agriculture and in states can make this happen. And, to state the obvious, benefits that are a couple of days delayed are far more help to families than going without any help at all."
She added: "The administration itself admits these reserves are available for use. It could have, and should have, taken steps weeks ago to be ready to use these funds. Instead, it may choose not to use them in an effort to gain political advantage."
In hopes of pressuring Democrats to abandon their demands that Congress extend a critical Affordable Care Act tax credit and prevent health insurance premiums from skyrocketing for more than 20 million Americans, Republicans have sought to use the shutdown to inflict maximum pain on voters.
Trump has attempted to carry out mass layoffs of government workers, which have been halted by a federal judge. Meanwhile, his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, has stripped funding from energy and transportation infrastructure projects aimed at blue states and cities.
"Terminating SNAP is a choice, and an overtly unlawful one at that," says David Super, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. "The administration has chosen to hold food for more than forty million vulnerable people hostage to try to force Democrats to capitulate without negotiations.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blocks Trump From Requiring Proof of Citizenship on Federal Voting Form
"Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," said one plaintiff in the case.
Oct 31, 2025
A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked part of President Donald Trump's executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms, a ruling hailed by one plaintiff in the case as "a clear victory for our democracy."
Siding with Democratic and civil liberties groups that sued the administration over Trump's March edict mandating a US passport, REAL ID-compliant document, military identification, or similar proof in order to register to vote in federal elections, Senior US District Judge for the District of Columbia Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the directive to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and to Congress, this court holds that the president lacks the authority to direct such changes," Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in her 81-page ruling.
"The Constitution addresses two types of power over federal elections: First, the power to determine who is qualified to vote, and second, the power to regulate federal election procedures," she continued. "In both spheres, the Constitution vests authority first in the states. In matters of election procedures, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to preempt State regulations."
"By contrast," Kollar-Kotelly added, "the Constitution assigns no direct role to the president in either domain."
This is the second time Kollar-Kotelly has ruled against Trump's proof-of-citizenship order. In April, she issued a temporary injunction blocking key portions of the directive.
"The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to."
"The court upheld what we've long known: The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to," the ACLU said on social media.
Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the decision as “a clear victory for our democracy."
"President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," she added.
Campaign Legal Center president Trevor Potter said in a statement: "This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress—not the president—the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections."
"We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections," Potter added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


