The case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas was decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

on 26th of May 2010.

Why is the case important?

In its judgment, the Court held that the Colombian state failed to effectively investigate the

murder of a journalist and politician.

The case is important because the Court stated that, when investigating an extrajudicial

execution, state authorities are obliged to focus on the pattern of different events in

order to draw necessary lines of the investigation.

They have to highlight the complexities and the context of the facts in order to ensure

that there was no omission in collecting evidence.

The Court thereby concretized a state's duty to protect the free exchange of political

ideas in order to avoid so-called chilling effects.

Principle facts The facts elected by the Commission refer

to the extrajudicial execution of Senador Cepeda Vargas, who was a social communicator

and also a leader of the Colombia Communist Party and the Patriarch Union Political Party.

It was alleged that his execution occurred in the context of a systematic pattern of

violence against the members of the UP and PCC perpetrated by an operation coordination

between members of the army and paramilitary groups.

Furthermore, the Commission affirmed that his execution revealed the situations faced

by members of the UP, the acts of harassment and persecution and the attempts on their

life as well as impunity of these acts.

In addition, the Commission claimed that the execution of Senador Cepeda Vargas was a conspicuous

example of the pattern of violence against UP activists, given his role as the last publicity-elected

representative of the party and constitute a crime against humanity.

The Court's finding The Court considered that the treat and deliberate

absence of protections faced by Senador Cepeda Vargas owing to his participation in the democratic

mechanism to which he had access were expressed by undue or unlawful pressure and restrictions

of his political rights, freedom of expression and freedom of association and also by a rupture

of the rules of the democratic gang.

In addition, since the political motive for the murder has been acknowledged, the Court

considered that the extrajudicial execution of an opponent for political reasons not only

entails the violence of several human rights but also breaches the principle upon which

the rule of law is based.

It directly violates the democratic system and as much as it results from a failure to

ensure that the different authorities abide by their obligation to protect, nationally

and internationally, recognized human rights.

In this regard, the Court considered that it was unnecessary to examine the impact that

the general situation of danger faced by Senador Cepeda and his death had on the electorate

right to vote.

However, it was possible to consider that the violation of Ms. Cepeda Vargas' rights

had treating and intimidating effects for the collectivity of individuals who were members

of his political party or who sympathized with his ideas.

The Court highlighted that the violations on this case went beyond the readers of his

column and the weekly publication was to members and sympathizers of the UP and those who voted

for this party.