On 18 March 2024, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a “historic” ruling in the “Case of the members of the Lawyers’ Corporation ‘José Alvear Restrepo’ v. Colombia”. The Observatory was very pleased to interview prominent human rights lawyer Reinaldo Villalba to understand the content, consequences and scope of this decision.
Reinaldo Villalba Vargas is a lawyer involved in the defence of human rights in Colombia. He has been a member of the well-known Colectivo José Alvear Restrepo (CAJAR) for over 30 years. Throughout his career as a lawyer, he has provided legal support to hundreds of victims of crimes against humanity and serious human rights violations.
Why do you consider the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling of 18 March to be “historic”?
This judgment is historic because it is the first to qualify the right to defend human rights as an autonomous right; because it reaffirms the State’s obligation to provide enhanced protection for human rights defenders and to provide guarantees for the exercise of the right; because the Court urges the State and all its authorities to exercise control over conventionality[1]; because the judgment defends the right to self-determination in matters of information; because the Court orders the State to regulate and limit the activities of the State’s intelligence agencies; because it highlights the dangers of stigmatising human rights defenders; because it recognises the distinct effects on women and children of attacks on human rights defenders; because this decision has implications throughout Latin America and the world in terms of protection and guarantees for the exercise of the defence of human rights.
The judgment is a tool for all human rights defenders in their quest for guarantees to defend these rights. It has a regional scope and, I would say, a global scope, due to the geographical importance of the decisions of the Inter-American Court.
The facts recount 45 years of continuous harassment of human rights lawyers. How have the facts mentioned in the judgment evolved?
CAJAR has existed for 45 years, and there have been 45 years of attacks and persecution by the state, including through its paramilitary strategy. There have been various forms of persecution, including stigmatisation and defamation campaigns, sabotage of CAJAR’s sources of funding and litigation, infiltration by state intelligence personnel, surveillance, control and harassment, illegal intrusions into our homes for search purposes, illegal interception of our communications, arbitrary detentions, theft of information, attacks and illegal intelligence work against our families, including children, as well as threats and arbitrary detentions.
As a human rights lawyer, I was subjected to systematic threats, state surveillance and a judicial frame-up against me. I was even verbally attacked and defamed in the European Parliament in Strasbourg by the Colombian president at the time, Álvaro Uribe.
Many CAJAR lawyers have been subjected to this harassment. For example, lawyer Alirio Uribe was declared target number one by the DAS. Lawyer Soraya Gutiérrez has been the target of an assassination attempt and, more recently, her colleague Yessika Hoyos has also received death threats. For these situations and many others, the Inter-American Court’s ruling recognised the violation of 14 rights and ordered more than 15 reparation measures.
More Sources
