Main Debates
- In the case of Colombia, what have been the results achieved by the protection offered by national institutions, in contrast with the results of the protection offered by the international community?
- What are the direct and indirect consequences of UNHCR’s activities beyond its traditional mandate in Colombia: does assistance to the internally displaced come at the expense of refugees?
Main Points
- National status of ‘internally displaced person’ versus refugee status
- Situation of the internally displaced in host communities
- Problems related to voluntary return (as durable solution) in the framework of a conflict
- Protection of human rights (including non-refoulement) versus concerns of regional security
- Eventual reparation measures in the Inter-American framework of human rights protection versus situation of grave and massive human rights violations
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Cases
Article 22
- Case of the Massacre of Ituango v. Colombia, Judgment of 1 July 2006, (the state must ensure the return of displaced persons to their territories of origin in conditions of security, or if this cannot be ensured, provide the necessary and sufficient resources in order that they can be resettled in similar conditions at the place they freely and voluntarily choose).
- Case of the Massacre of Mapiripán v. Colombia, Judgment of 15 September 2005, (the state must take the necessary measures to guarantee that the family members of the victims of displacement can return in conditions of security to Mapiripán when they so desire).
- Case Moiwana v. Suriname, Judgment of 15 June 2005, (the state did not take the necessary measures to guarantee the safe and dignified return of displaced persons, nor did it carry out the necessary investigations about the human rights violations due to the forced displacement of this community, which caused them emotional, psychological, spiritual and economic suffering).
Provisional Measures
- Provisional measures in the matter of the indigenous community of Kankuamo, 5 July 2004, (the Colombian State was required to guarantee the necessary conditions of security in order to respect the right to freedom of movement of the indigenous Kankuamo people, so that those who have been forcibly displaced could return to their home if they so desire).
- Provisional measures in the matter of the communities of Jiguamiando and Curbarado, 6 March 2003, (the State of Colombia was required to ensure that the applicants can continue to live in their habitual residence as well as to adopt the necessary measures in order that the displaced persons of these communities could return to their home).
- Provisional measures in the matter of the Peace Community of San Jose de Apartado, 24 November 2000, (the State of Colombia was requested to ensure the necessary conditions in order that the forcibly displaced persons of the Community of Paz de San Jose de Apartado could return to their home).
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Annual Reports
- Annual Report (2005), 27 February 2006, (OEA/Ser.L/II.124) (analysis of the situation of Colombian refugees and migrants in Haiti and the human rights situation in Colombia, with special emphasis on the internal armed conflict and its consequences on the civil population, particularly the forced displacement).
- Annual Report (1998), 16 April 1999, (OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.102) (recommendations for States to adopt, respect and apply the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement).
Country Reports
- Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, 6 April 2001, (OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.111) (analysis of the human rights situation of the population uprooted by the armed conflict, with special attention to its reintegration, the possession and ownership of land, the development and the access to basic services).
- Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, 8 February 1995, (OEA/Ser.L/V.88) (analysis of the situation of internal displacement in Haiti as well as the situation of Haitian refugees, with special attention to the issues of rescue at see and their transfer to the Guantanamo military base).
- Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, 1 June 1993, (OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.83) (historical analysis of the displacement in Guatemala, the signature of Agreements between the Government of Guatemala and the Permanent Commissions in 1992, and the specific problems experienced by this vulnerable population).
General Assembly of the Organisation of American States
Resolutions
- Resolution AG/RES. 2229 (XXXVI-O/06). Internally Displaced Persons.
Readings
Core
- A. A. Cançado Trindade, ‘Approximations and Convergences Revisited: Ten Years of Interaction between International Human Rights Law, International Refugee Law, and International Humanitarian Law (from Cartagena – 1984 to San Jose – 1994 and Mexico – 2004)’, in Memoir of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees 1984-2004, (San Jose: UNHCR, Editorama, 2004), pp. 142–147.
- M. Gottwald, Protecting Colombian Refugees in the Andean Region: The Fight against Invisibility (Geneva: UNHCR, 2003), pp. 7–10, 14–18.
- R. Cohen, ‘The evolution of internally displaced persons in the Americas, specific protection needs and the importance of an interagency framework’, in Memoir of the International Colloquium on the Tenth Anniversary of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (San Jose: UNHCR-IIDH-Government of Costa Rica, San Jose, 5-7 November 1994), pp. 305–312.
- R. Goldman, ‘Internally Displaced Persons: Global and Regional Initiatives, Specific Protection Needs and the importance of an Inter-Agency Framework’, in Memoir of the International Colloquium on the Tenth Anniversary of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (San Jose: UNHCR-IIDH-Government of Costa Rica, San Jose, 5-7 November 1994), pp. 292–303.
