From an examination of the evidence obtained in carrying out this International Tribunal of Opinion into the deaths of seven people and the disappearance of twenty five others in Barrancabermeja, Department of Santander, Colombia on the 16^th of May 1998 the Tribunal considers itself to be competent to make a pronouncement on the questions put forward by the organisers of the Tribunal, which are the following

1. Whether the Colombian state has any responsibility by act in the events surrounding the deaths or forced disappearance of the mentioned persons .

2. Whether the Colombian state has any responsibility by omission the same events.

3. Whether the Colombian state has let the crimes remain in impunity.

Having considered all the evidence presented to this International Tribunal of Opinion during the hearings that took place in Barrancabermeja on the 14^th and 15^th of May 1999, which was: documentary evidence, testimony of nine eye witnesses, an inspection of the scenes of the crimes and expert technical witnesses, this Tribunal pronounces the following:

On the basis of the facts of the present findings which are extensively outlined this International Tribunal of Opinion considers it proven that on the 16^th day of May 1998 in the city of Barrancabermeja the deaths of seven persons and the disappearance of twenty five others, of whose fate nothing is known, occurred as a result of the actions of a group of armed men who violently entered the above mentioned places.

The participation of members of the armed forces (police and army) alongside civilians in the group of people that carried out the crimes that are under consideration has been repeatedly affirmed by witnesses and amongst those soldiers at least one of them has been identified by the Prosecutor’s Office of Colombia.

In effect the eyewitnesses have given sufficient reliable information from which the attackers can be identified as members of the army or police. Some of the witnesses have referred to army officers as active collaborators in this criminal action.

The actions of the armed forces against the guerrillas which is sometimes used to justify violent actions against civilians cannot be used under any circumstances in a case of this nature which is clearly in violation of their human rights.

At the same time the existence and action of armed groups of paramilitaries is not only unacceptable in a country governed by the rule of law, but it also undermines its very foundations as it puts in danger the life and security of its citizens whose protection and welfare is the very essence of the state. So a tolerant attitude towards such groups is unthinkable. Less still can one imagine that state agents would take part in such groups.

We also consider that the violent acts that have given rise to this finding are part of a wider plan aimed at intimidating the civilian population, the destruction of its organisational and social fabric and the elimination of its leaders. None of this happens by chance, it is a premeditated plan which seeks an end which is contrary to the rule of law.

We are obliged to describe the crimes analysed here as "crimes against humanity". In doing so we rely on the definition of such crimes given by the International Penal Court of the Statute of Rome approved on the 17^th of July 1998 which is applicable to this case even though its approval was subsequent to the events under consideration as in reality all it did was systemise in a clearer, more concrete and wider manner a crime that was already defined although in a more disperse manner within the framework of consuetudinary International Law. (Originally present in the investigations of the Nuremberg Tribunal and codified by the U.N commission on International Law )

Art. 7 of the Statute establishes "1. For the effect of the present statute, ‘crimes against humanity’ are understood as any of the following acts which are perpetrated as a generalised or systematic attack on the civilian population and with knowledge of such an attack: a) murder;.... i) the forced dissapearence of persons(...). The ‘forced disappearance of persons’ shall be understood as the apprehension, detention or kidnapping of people by a state or a political organisation or with their authorisation, support or acquiescence, followed by a refusal to inform about the loss of liberty or give information about the fate or the whereabouts of these people with the intention of leaving them outside the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time".

All of the elements placed before the Tribunal by the experts establish the systematic character of the attack on the civilian population in Barrancabermeja and further in the region of Magdalena Medio and indeed in a large part of Colombia in whose framework these events can be placed. It must be remembered that according to reports drawn up by the Office of the Ombudsman there were at least 235 massacres ( a massacre being understood as at least four simultaneous homicides) in Colombia. In the city of Barrancabermeja alone massacres of this nature were repeated. In the month of July of that year ten people were killed. In February 1999 nine people were killed and two disappeared following a similar format to the events under consideration here.

These facts allow us to consider these events as not being isolated but instead form part of a systematic attack on the civilian population protected and/or managed by state agents of high rank.

For all of this we consider the Colombian state responsible by its actions in the events under consideration and we qualify them as crimes against humanity due to the active participation of state agents in the same. The qualification of the crimes as crimes against humanity means they are not imprescriptible and nor can they be considered political offences for the purposes of asylum and extradition for the authors as well as being subject to international jurisdiction.

The support or acquiescence of the state which is referred to in the definition of the crimes against humanity previously referred to is applicable in this case. In effect it has been proven that the armed forces in the garrisons near the scenes of the events did nothing to prevent them happening despite their mission to protect the civilian being their first duty and it was within their power to do so. It has been proved that the shots of the attacking group could be clearly heard by the soldiers in the garrisons, however, they did nothing in response to them. It has also being proved that it was physically impossible to enter and leave the mentioned neighbourhoods using various vehicles without the soldiers being aware of it. It has also been proved that although there were specific orders to establish a military checkpoint on alert for 24 hours from 12 noon on the 15^th of May 1998 in the place known as ‘la Y’ or ‘el retén’ on the road from Barrancabermeja to the airport of Bucaramanga the checkpoint was lifted before the moment in which the incursion took place by the armed group. To date it has proved impossible to obtain a justification for lifting the checkpoint.

It has been proven that the police refused to come to the aid of the relatives of the disappeared when they informed the police of what was happening seeking their help. Not only did the police not help them but they made fun of them and swore at them in some cases. They did nothing to defend or safeguard the relatives of the those violently taken.

Furthermore it has also been proved that in the days following the forced disappearance the authorities did nothing to facilitate information about their whereabouts to those relatives who sought it. Worse still we heard testimonies that affirmed that in a cruel and macabre game the same authorities deceived them giving false information that they were alive or dead or insisted that they knew nothing about the events or their consequences.

Lastly, we believe that the omission of the Colombian State through its military and police agents cannot be attributed to simple negligence, inefficiency or a lack of professional conscience. We are quite clearly dealing with an omission that was previously organised at a high level, an example of which is the lifting of the road blocks, and that this constituted an essential part of the criminal project.

Thus the State’s repsonsibiltiy is not only negative due to the lack of response on the part of its agents, it is also active given the essential character of this omission. We are talking about joint planning and not ignorance on their part.

So we believe that the State’s responsibility has been proven in the events under consideration. This responsibility through fraudulent omission or as a coauthor through its renuniciation of its duty to protect its citizens.

3. The Responsibility of the Colombian State for the impunity surrounding the authors and those responsible for the events under consideration.

The tale of the months following the dramatic events under consideration and indeed the whole year to date is a tale of fruitless attempts by the relatives to obtain justice. In effect we know the actions of various state agencies ( which came after and as a result of the popular pressure brought to bear by the inhabitants of Barrancbermeja in reaction to the crimes outlined). However, these have yet to produce a single concrete result one year after the commission of the crimes. Worse still, it has been established by this International Tribunal that the person responsible for investigating these events had to go into exile in the month of December 1998 because his life was put in danger the minute the results of his inquiry brought him close to the military.

This perhaps explains why the only person accused and detained was freed two months later by the new prosecutor because of a failure to carry out procedures within the time frame established by law. This highlights the lack of any guarantee of independence of the members of this judicial branch charged with carrying out this type of investigation. By the same token, the Tribunal has no knowledge that serious inquiries were made to localise and detain the only two civilians investigated who it is presumed could be paramilitaries. If on the part of the Attorney General’s Office there were disciplinary investigations it seems strange that they should take so long and that it did not seek a provisional suspension of those investigated as is permitted by art. 155 of The Disciplinary Code.

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary qualifies as "acts of service" those serious human rights abuses which could be called crimes against humanity. In so doing it recognises the competence of the military courts and undermines the contrary jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court guaranteeing the military total impunity. The procedures applied by the military courts do not even respect the independence and impartiality of the judicial authorities given that the judicial function derives from rank and there is no separation between military authority and the judicial function. In some cases the same officer acts both as party to the proceedings and judge in the same.

For all of the above and despite the technical quality of the investigations of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office these cannot be considered as appropriate or adequate responses given the gravity of the events.

Impunity organised in this manner cannot only be considered as damaging the rights of victims but that it is a precondition for the repetition of the events, making them systematic and as such a necessary element for qualifying them as crimes against humanity. So we can conlude that this impunity can be considered as an element of crimes against humanity.

In consequence this International Tribunal of Opinion deems that the Colombian State is responsible for the impunity in which the criminal events that occurred in Barrancabermeja on the 16^th of May 1998 remain. The crime of forced disappearance cannot be prescribed until such time as the disappeared are presented alive or their remains are handed over to their families.

Barrancabermeja, Colombia 16^th of May 1999