## Facts

- On April 7, 1991, thirteen civilians were killed in Río Frío, Valle del Cauca, Colombia, during an operation alleged to involve Colombian Army personnel acting in coordination with armed plain-clothes men.
- Petitioners alleged the victims were detained, abused, and executed, and that authorities later portrayed the events as a combat engagement.
- Petitioners asserted the Third Army Brigade simulated a confrontation after the killings by firing weapons and using explosives, then moved bodies and placed firearms near the dead to suggest they were combatants.
- Eyewitness accounts described screams and blows before death, supporting allegations of abuse prior to execution.
- Domestic proceedings were initiated but were conducted mainly within military jurisdiction; petitioners alleged the process was ineffective and resulted in acquittals and impunity.
- The petition was filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on May 20, 1996; the Commission opened Case 11.654 on July 26, 1996.
- Before the Commission, the State did not meaningfully dispute the core factual allegations and referenced disciplinary proceedings against members of the brigade.

## Issues

1. Whether Colombia was internationally responsible for the extrajudicial execution of thirteen civilians through the direct participation, collaboration, or acquiescence of State agents.
2. Whether Colombia violated the right to life in conjunction with the rights of the child as to the victims who were minors.
3. Whether Colombia violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection by relying primarily on military jurisdiction and by failing to conduct effective investigations and prosecutions.
4. Whether Colombia breached its duty to respect and ensure Convention rights by failing to investigate, punish, and provide reparation for the violations.

## Decision

- The Commission held Colombia internationally responsible for violating the American Convention on Human Rights.
- Colombia violated Article 4 (right to life) regarding the adult victims through extrajudicial executions attributable to State agents acting with armed civilians.
- Colombia violated Article 4 in conjunction with Article 19 (rights of the child) regarding the child victims.
- Colombia violated Article 5 (humane treatment) regarding specified victims subjected to mistreatment associated with the events.
- Colombia violated Articles 8 (fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection), in conjunction with Article 1(1), regarding the victims and their families due to ineffective, non-independent proceedings centered in military jurisdiction.
- The Commission recommended effective investigation and prosecution in ordinary courts, adequate reparations, and measures to prevent recurrence, including limits on military jurisdiction for human-rights violations.

## Legal Principles

- A State is responsible for killings carried out by its agents and for abuses committed in coordinated operations with private armed actors when the conduct is attributable to State participation, acquiescence, or cover-up.
- Extrajudicial executions violate the right to life; the State must justify any use of lethal force as strictly necessary and proportionate, and fabrication of a “combat” scenario supports a finding of unlawful deprivation of life.
- When victims are minors, the right to life must be read together with the rights of the child, increasing the State’s duties of protection.
- Severe pre-death abuse and related suffering constitute violations of humane treatment under Article 5.
- Articles 8 and 25 require investigations and proceedings that are competent, independent, impartial, and effective; military jurisdiction is incompatible with these guarantees when trying serious human-rights violations attributed to the armed forces.
- Article 1(1) requires States to prevent, investigate, punish, and repair human-rights violations; ineffective proceedings and impunity breach this obligation.

## Conclusion

The Commission concluded that the Río Frío killings were extrajudicial executions attributable to Colombia and that the State compounded the violations through a staged confrontation narrative and ineffective military-jurisdiction proceedings, resulting in breaches of the rights to life, humane treatment, due process, and judicial protection, including special protections owed to child victims.


Riofrío Massacre (Colom.), Case 11.654, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 62/01 (2001)