Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentencia T-025 de 2004 - Colombia

---

Background

This case involved 108 files that had been joined by the Court. These concerned 108 tutela actions submitted by 1150 family units, all belonging to the displaced population, and composed mainly of women heads of household, elderly persons and children, as well as some indigenous persons. A number of these tutela actions were filed by civil society organisations on behalf of displaced persons. The complainants claimed that authorities were not fulfilling their mandate to protect the displaced population in terms of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and were failing to respond effectively to the complainants’ requests for housing, health care, education, humanitarian aid and access to state aid for their integration into the labour market and the implementation of economically profitable projects. The majority of these tutela actions had been rejected by the judges at the lower courts.

Reasoning

The Court stated that due to the conditions of extreme vulnerability in which the displaced population finds itself, as well as the repeated omission to provide them with timely and effective protection on the part of the various authorities responsible for their care, the rights of both the actors in the case and the displaced population in general were violated. Specifically, it referred to the right to a dignified life and to personal integrity (Arts. 1 and 12 of the Constitution and UN Guiding Principles 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15), to equality (Art. 13 of the Constitution and UN Guiding Principles 1 to 4, 6, 9 and 22), to petition, to work and to social security (Art. 6 of the Constitution , Law 387 of 1997 and UN Guiding Principles 1, 3, 4, 11 and 18), to health (Arts. 49 and 50 of the Constitution and UN Guiding Principles 1, 2 and 19), to education (Art. 67(3) of the Constitution and UN Guiding Principle 23), to the minimum conditions for life (UN Guiding Principles 18, 24 and 27) and to the due special protection (Arts. 42 and 44 of the Constitution and UN Guiding Principles 2, 4, 9 and 17) for the elderly, women heads of household and children.

The Court defined the minimum levels of protection that must be guaranteed in a timely and effective manner to the displaced population in the face of insufficient resources or deficiencies in institutional capacity. According to the Court, this determination of minimum standards implies that “(i) in no case may the essential core of the fundamental constitutional rights of displaced persons be threatened and (ii) the State has to satisfy the minimum level of the rights to life, to dignity, to physical, psychological and moral integrity, to family unity, to the provision of urgent and basic health services, to protection against discriminatory practices based on the condition of being displaced, and to the right to education up to the age of fifteen in the case of children in a situation of displacement.” (p. 32).

The existence of an unconstitutional state of affairs with regard to the situation of the displaced population was declared by the Court on the basis of the lack of concordance between (a) the seriousness of the impact on constitutionally recognised rights developed by law, and (b) the volume of resources allocated to ensure the effective enjoyment of such rights and the institutional capacity to implement them. The Court also relied on the high number of tutela actions filled by displaced persons, which confirmed the impact these violations had had on a large part of this population group, and the structural nature of the issue, since the violations were attributable to various state bodies.

Remedy

The Court ordered a series of actions related to the unconstitutional state of affairs aimed at guaranteeing the rights of the entire displaced population, regardless of whether they had sought protection of their rights through tutela actions. The aim with the order was to force the government to reassess and restructure the actions or omissions that led to the violation of the Constitution and legislation in the shortest possible time, providing sufficient opportunities for the participation of displaced people’s representatives, to ensure that displaced people, including children, could effectively enjoy their rights. The Court also ordered a series of actions aimed at responding to the specific requests of the complainants in the tutela action in line with the Court’s previous jurisprudence on the rights of displaced population. These actions included: (i) addressing requests to access financial support programmes (including temporary jobs, business projects, training and food security) and housing, (ii) determining whether requests for registration in the Unified Registry of Displaced Populations meet the objective conditions of displacement and, if so, giving them immediate access to the assistance envisaged for their protection, (iii) effectively granting the requested humanitarian aid to those who applied for it, (iv) guaranteeing the complainants’ effective access to the health system, ensuring that they are provided with the required medicines, (v) ensuring effective access to the education system for children until the age of fifteen and (vi) registering information regarding displaced people’s land properties in order to effectively protect them.

Role of children

Children were petitioners in the tutela actions. They were represented by adults, mostly legal representatives of the civil organisations involved.

Enforcement and other outcomes

The decision forced the government to reassess and restructure the actions and omissions that led to the violation of the Constitution and the legislation in the shortest possible time to ensure that displaced people, including children, could effectively enjoy their rights. The court ordered a series of concrete actions to be carried out by the authorities to this end. This decision is followed by two orders (Autos 251-05 and 756-08), which focus specifically on assessing and monitoring the rights of displaced children. In these Autos, the Constitutional Court described progress in this regard as “low”.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

Although the litigation was not brought solely to protect the rights of displaced children, its aim was to stop the massive violation of fundamental rights of displaced people, which affects displaced children as well. The decision forces the government to reassess and restructure the actions or omissions that led to the violation to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights of this vulnerable group. This implies the obligation to adopt clear policies in favour of displaced people, including children. The state of unconstitutional affairs enables the Constitutional Court to make the effects of the decision applicable to all and to directly monitor compliance with the ruling (see Autos 251-08 and 756-18).

Country

Colombia

Forum and date of decision

Constitutional Court, Third Review Chamber, Republic of Colombia/Corte Constitucional, Sala Tercera de Revisión, República de Colombia

22 January 2004

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

• UN Guiding Principles on internal displacement (UN Doc. E/CN./4/1998/53/Add.2 of 17 April 1998)

• Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations, Art. 2, Para. 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

• Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, Art. 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Domestic law provisions

• Constitution of Colombia, arts. 1, 2, 4.2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 42, 44, 49, 67.3, 83, 85, 86.3, 93, 113, 241.9, 345, 346 and 350.1 (English translation)

• Decree 2591 of 1991, by which the action of tutela enshrined in Article 86 of the Political Constitution is regulated, arts. 10, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 38

• Administrative Litigation Code, art 5.

•  Circular 0042 of 2002 on sources of financing for health care for the displaced population

• Decree 951 of 2001, which partially regulates Laws 3 of 1991 and 387 of 1997, in relation to housing and housing subsidies for the displaced population

• Law 387 of 1997, by which measures are adopted for the prevention of forced displacement; the care, protection, consolidation and socio-economic stabilisation of those internally displaced by violence in the Republic of Colombia, arts. 1, 3, 6 and 22. (English translation)

• Decree 2569 of 2000, by which Law 387 of 1997 is partially regulated and other provisions are issued, arts. 7, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27

• Decree 2007 of 2001, which partially regulates articles 7, 17 and 19 of Law 387 of 1997, in relation to the timely attention to the rural population displaced by violence, in the framework of voluntary return to their place of origin or resettlement elsewhere

• Decree 173 of 1998, by which the National Plan for the Integral Attention to the Population Displaced by Violence is adopted

Related information

For the applicants:

• Municipal ombudsman of Neiva - Jorge Osorio Peña

  Personería de Neiva

  Calle 8 no. 12-22 Neiva-Huila

• Fundación Ayudémonos FUNDAYUDE - Javier Augusto Silva Madero, legal representative

• Asociación Humanitaria de Colombia (ahudeco@hotmail.com) - Jorge E Peralta de Brigard, legal representative

• Asociación de Desplazados del Caribe Colombiano - Juvenal Navarro Arroyo, legal representative

• Asociación por un mejor vivir feliz - Deyanira Herrera, legal representative

• Asociación Nueva Vida (alonsovifi@hotmail.com) - Eduardo Orozco, legal representative

• Asociación Nuevo Horizonte - Pedro Pacheco, legal representative

  Calle 1B # 55 – 74 Cali-Colombia

• Asociación Desplazados Unidos - Ismael Maestre, legal representative

• Asociación Asodespente - Juan Montes, legal representative

• Asociación Justicia y Paz (cauca@justiciaypazcolombia.com) - Jony Meriño, legal representative

• Asociación Renacer (asorenacer@yahoo.es) - Luis Carlos Fernández, legal representative

• Asociación de Familias Desplazadas (ASOFADECOL) (luzmarinac59@yahoo.es) - Henry Rivera Acosta, legal representative

• Asociación de Personas Desplazadas de Fonseca, ADESFONGUA - Eustacio Fonseca Barraza, legal representative.

For the Respondent:

• Red de Solidaridad Social

• Departamento Administrativo de la Presidencia de la República

  Calle 7 No.6-54, Bogotá D.C., Colombia

• Ministerio de Hacienda y Crédito Público

  Carrera 8 No. 6C- 38. Bogotá D.C., Colombia

• Ministerios de Salud y del Trabajo y Seguridad Social (now Ministerio de Protección Social)

  Carrera 13 No. 32-76 piso 1, Bogotá D.C., Colombia

• Ministerio de Agricultura

  Avenida Jimenez N°. 7A - 17, Bogotá D.C., Colombia

• Ministerio de Educación

  Calle 43 No. 57 - 14. Bogotá D.C., Colombia

• Instituto Nacional de Vivienda de Interés Social y Reforma Urbana - INURBE

• Instituto Colombiano de la Reforma Agraria - INCORA (now Agencia Nacional de Tierras – ANT)

  Calle 43 N° 57 - 41. Bogotá D.C., Colombia

Amici curiae:

• Defensoría del Pueblo

  Calle 55 No. 10-32, Bogotá D.C., Colombia

• Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR) – Francisco Galindo Vélez

  Calle 71 N° 12-25, Bogotá D.C., Colombia

• Conferencia Episcopal de Colombia, Secretariado Nacional de Pastoral Social, Sección de Movilidad Humana

Case documents

• Sentencia T-025 de 2004

• Annex 1: summary of the tutela judgments reviewed in this proceeding (T-653010 and aggregated)

• Annex 2: Summary of evidence provided by public entities and organisations. – Red de Solidaridad Social, Departamento Nacional de Planeación (DNP), Ministerio de Hacienda y Crédito Público, Ministerio de Educación Nacional, Ministerio de Protección Social, Instituto Nacional de Vivienda de Interés Social y Reforma Urbana (INURBE), Defensoría del Pueblo, Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR) y Secretariado Nacional de Pastoral Social de la Conferencia Episcopal de Colombia, Sección de Movilidad Humana.

• Annex 3: Duties of the state in relation to the protection of the fundamental rights of persons in situations of displacement, according to the guiding principles on forced internal displacement (1998).

• Annex 4: Summary of Constitutional Court rulings on the rights of the displaced population considered in this judgement

• Annex 5: Public policy on assistance to the displaced population. Description and observations relevant to the decision adopted by the court.

Secondary documents

• Jiménez Ocampo S and others, Internally Displaced People In Colombia, Victims In Permanent Transition: Ethical And Political Dilemas Of Reparative Justice In The Midst Of Internal Armed Conflict (Ediciones Antropos 2009) <https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r25217.pdf > accessed 1 March 2022

• Ibáñez A, and Velásquez A, 'El Impacto Del Desplazamiento Forzoso En Colombia' (United Nations 2008) <https://www.cepal.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/6151/S0800725_es.pdf > accessed 1 March 2022

• Niño Pavajeau J, 'Las Migraciones Forzadas De Población, Por La Violencia, En Colombia: Una Historia De Éxodos, Miedo, Terror, Y Pobreza' (1999) 33 Scripta Nova Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales <http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn-45-33.htm > accessed 1 March 2022

• Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja (CICR) & Programa Mundial de Alimentos (PMA), 'Una Mirada A La Población Desplazada En Ocho Ciudades De Colombia: Respuesta Institucional Local, Condiciones De Vida Y Recomendaciones Para Su Atención' (CICR - PMA 2007) <https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/286A0FD67CBB8C41C125740A004EBDA3-Reporte_completo.pdf > accessed 1 March 2022