FLIP rejects public figures and journalists issuing messages linking reporters, which are covering social protests, with urban militias. These generic assessments put journalists at risk, deteriorate the conditions for their work, and negatively impact the debate on issues of public interest.

On November 23, FLIP learned that Herbin Hoyos produced and published a video in which it related the press -covering the protests in Bogotá and Medellín on November 21- to organized criminal structures. In this video, while images of journalists from Colprensa and other media covering the events are shown, Hoyos says: “the roles of each of them are distributed: some are those who attack, others are those who film, some even have press vests, others sometimes use human rights vests.” 

Hours later, this message was supported by former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez, who posted it on his Twitter account with the following message: “The militias and their vandalic and terrorist action. Herbin Hoyos”. This means an amplification of the message, as Uribe has nearly five million followers on that social network. The video has had more than 70,000 views and 2,500 likes.  

For FLIP, it is worrying that the mass dissemination of these messages causes a scenario of permissiveness to undermine the rights of communicators. In particular, it is emphasized that, in the Colombian context, there is already a latent risk against journalists who cover these types of actions. 

FLIP reminds former Senator Uribe and those who broadcasted these messages that, since November last year, social demonstrations have become a scenario of high risk for journalists. FLIP has documented attacks on 75 journalists, and in most cases the aggressors were members of the Law Enforcement Personnel. 

Widespread linking of the press with organized structures, can generate a criminalization of journalists who cover social protests in the collective imaginary. This has the potential to put them at a greater unjustifiable risk, constraining their independence, also leading to self-censorship. 

It is worth noting that in a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Justice, in order to guarantee the right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression, ordered to end, prevent and punish the stigmatization of those who, without violence, go out to the streets to question, refute and criticize the activities of the government and attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of the press. These stigmatizing messages are in contravention of this order. 

FLIP knows that Herbin Hoyos rectified that those who appear in the video identified as a press are not part of any criminal organization. However, it is a priority for Hoyos to make the same clarification in the original video, to circulate the updated information.

In turn, we reiterate that people with a high level of public exposure, such as former President Uribe, have a duty to guarantee civil liberties. Uribe is therefore obliged to replicate the second video clarifying the absence of linking of journalists with urban militias with the same broadcast. The opposite can feed a dangerous atmosphere for democratic life.

The Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP) presents its virtual museum, named Memoirs of Journalism in Colombia. It is a digital platform that contributes to the collection of memories and stories about journalism and the violence that has been executed over journalists. It is the starting point for promoting reflections and different views on the challenges the trade faces in the country.

To speak of a museum, is to speak of cultural value at the service of society. Ours, named Memoirs of Journalism, seeks to contribute to the collection of regional historical archives on violence against journalists and the media, and their resistance. It is also an initiative that allows a fresh interpretation of the current situation of journalism, and promotes reflection, debate and the emergence of strategies that contribute to improving the conditions for freedom of speech in Colombia.

The virtual nature of the museum will allow every Colombian concerned about the journalistic activity to consult, from any place, this dialog between past events and the present of the trade. This museum is a tool to encourage the rescue and conservation of journalistic materials, thereby raising awareness on authorities and society about the need for their preservation.

 

Inaugural Exhibition 

 

The exhibition named Journalism, Memories from the Inside, is the result of research on information as a battlefield. FLIP delivered the report of that investigation to the Truth Commission in February 2020, to help clarify what has happened during decades of conflict. The research and this first installment tell the stories of three departments: Arauca, Córdoba, and Caquetá.

This exhibition proposes a journey through some rivers and roads of the country, where, despite the difficulties, resistance has also won its battles. Audiences are at the center of these stores, some attentive from remote places, who daily rely on the transmission of information to feel that they live in a democracy. 

The portrayed investigations account for journalists whose lives were taken away by the conflict, for the media that disappeared, and for the initiatives that have arisen amid this discouraging landscape.

We present and inaugurate the Memoirs of Journalism Museum with this first exhibition. We will continue to publish stories in order to enrich the collection through our research and the important participation of all in the collective construction of memory. 

-Visit the museum following this link: https://memoriasdelperiodismo.co/index.html

-Follow FLIP on social media to watch new museum collections: Facebook: @FLIPCol, Twitter, and Instagram: @Flip_org.

 

• Between the 9th and the 21st of September 2020, FLIP recorded 33 press freedom violations.
  
  
• FLIP calls on the National Police to train its members to guarantee freedom of the press.
  
  
• We request the National Government to urgently take the necessary measures to comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, and to direct the actions of the Law Enforcement Personnel.
  
  

The Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP) rejects the continuing attacks on journalists and the media by demonstrators and members of the Law Enforcement Personnel during the coverage of social mobilizations. 

Between the 9th and the 21st of September of 2020, FLIP has recorded 33 press freedom violations that have affected 35 journalists amid coverage of social demonstrations. The most frequent attacks have been physical assaults with 16 cases, followed by obstructions to journalistic work with five cases, illegal detentions with four cases and three other threatening situations during the coverage.

On September 21, during the days of social mobilization that occurred in the main cities of the country, three more cases of attacks on the press were carried out. In the downtown of Bogotá, on Jiménez Avenue with Carrera Séptima, serious acts of violence took place. One of those persons affected was freelance photographer Andrés Torres, who was attacked by members of ESMAD (riot police) while recording the arrest of a person by seven police officers. According to the reporter, when he was taking the pictures, uniformed men shot him twice: One of the projectiles left a wound on one of his fingers and totally damaged his camera. Torres assures that the other shot was with a rubber bullet that hit him in one of his legs and left him with a hematoma. When the attack occurred, the reporter was fully identified as press on his helmet and bracelet he carried. 

At that same point in the city, journalists Fabián Yáñez and César Posada, duly identified as reporters for Semana Magazine, were attacked by Law Enforcement Personnel when they were covering the demonstrations. According to Yáñez, ESMAD agents charged with gasses and stun bombs to a point where only journalists were located. Yáñez and Posada ran to the Colombian Central Bank building (Banco de la República) to guard themselves, but ESMAD agents chased them to that point and, from a short distance, shot them twice with stun bombs. 

The third event took place in the city of Bucaramanga. During the demonstrations taking place in Luis Carlos Galán Square, the correspondents of RCN Televisión and the journalistic team of Televisión Regional de Oriente channel were attacked by demonstrators, who prevented the recording and expelled the reporters from the site. The two press teams left the square guarded by members of Law Enforcement Personnel.  

In addition, of the recent events affecting the development of journalistic work, 76% are attributed to members of the National Police, and the remaining 24% to individuals.

FLIP expresses its concern that these press freedom violations still fall within the framework of systematic practices denounced by multiple civil organizations in the face of the November 2019 protests. Some of these are: The arbitrary resolution of peaceful protests, the anti-regulatory use of potentially lethal weapons, the disproportionate use of irritating chemical agents in the dissolution of protests, the arbitrary detention of people in the context of protests by the National Police, and attacks on journalists covering the demonstrations. 

In a judgment of September 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the existence of a systematic violation of the rights to protest, freedom of speech and freedom of the press by law enforcement officers, in the excessive and disproportionate use of force, when these, in defense of law and order, behave excessively and without control. 

In this regard, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization- UNESCO - reiterated that “law enforcement personnel has a duty to ensure the safety of journalists covering protests, and to guarantee the public's right to seek and receive information on these mass mobilizations”. Therefore, it stressed the need for security forces to receive training in freedom of speech, so that they can “better understand the role and mission of journalists in democratic societies”. 

FLIP notes with concern the stigmatizing reactions of some political leaders, particularly those expressed by Gustavo Petro as opposition leader , to the various views of the press regarding the unprecedented decision of the Supreme Court of Justice. We reiterate that political leaders are also guarantors of the freedom of expression of those who do not agree with their approaches. They should therefore refrain from making stigmatizing statements against those who exercise the right of opinion and that of press, in particular, because this conduct eliminates the guarantees that all points of view are expressed and that a plural and diverse debate is forged.

Thus, FLIP calls on the National government to urgently take the necessary measures to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling and to channel the action of Law Enforcement Personnel. 

In addition, FLIP calls on the National Police, which must guarantee journalistic work in these scenarios, to initiate a disciplinary investigation into these events, in order to punish the military personnel responsible for these proceedings against press freedom. Likewise, for it to train its members to guarantee this right and to re-enforce the presence of the press as a guarantee of transparency of its operations and not as an obstacle. 

FLIP also calls on demonstrators to also ensure the free development of journalistic work. It is paradoxical that the right to express oneself publicly affects the press covering on the demands of different social groups

Finally, political parties and citizens' movements are called upon to encourage public debate in fulfillment of their constitutional role. The rule of law is strengthened by a free press, and weakened when politicians turn to denigrating speeches seeking to praise journalism that they dislike.

The Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP) publishes this letter addressed to the General Prosecutor of the Nation, to express its concern over the use of illegitimate, unnecessary, unjustified and disproportionate mechanisms in the investigation of the Prosecutor's Office against Diana Díaz, who denounced a case of censorship in Colombia's public media system.

The initiation or advance of investigations by the Prosecutor's Office against journalists, sources, the media and collectives who use their freedom of expression to inform or comment on matters of public interest, can create an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship.

FLIP also requests a meeting with the General Prosecutor as soon as possible, to further understand the details of his concerns in the face of pressures to informants of journalistic investigations.

Read here the letter we sent, in Spanish.

On August 30, Semana Magazine published the court file of Álvaro Uribe in the Semana News section of its digital channel, including the legal interceptions of some family members of witness Juan Guillermo Monsalve. After this publication, Marta Elena Monsalve, sister of the witness, filed a writ request for protection of fundamental rights against the Semana Magazine and journalists Vicky Dávila and Jairo Fidel Lozano. 

The Second Criminal Court of the Circuit of Bogotá, in a judgment of September 28, 2020, notified on October 6, considered that the publication of the recordings of family conversations, that were ordered by the Pre-trial Proceedings Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, which are evidence within that public interest judicial process, affected Marta Elena Monsalve's personal and family privacy rights. Therefore, in the writ for protection of fundamental rights, the judge ordered Semana Magazine and journalists to withdraw the program entitled “Exclusive!  The conversations of Witness Monsalve with his family” from all its platforms.

The Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP), the Colombian Information Media Association (AMI) and the National Media Association (Asomedios) reject the censorship resulting from the court decision of the Second Criminal Court with a pre-trial proceedings role in Bogotá, and we state the following: 

 

• It is crucial to emphasize that this is the publication of information on a judiciary proceeding of high public interest and national significance, and this is preponderant on the basis of the duty of weighting between the investigation of crimes and the freedom of the press guarantee. The recordings contain information about one of the witnesses against former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez, who appears in the trial against the former president for alleged bribery of witnesses and procedural fraud.
  
  
• The judge ordered the removal of the publication on the grounds that although journalists have the right to report, they could not use evidence of a reserved kind, since "its use is not permitted, less its disclosure in various matters of criminal proceedings". In view of this, we believe that information based on judicial investigations and proceedings is not exclusively used within the proceeding, as it is also an element of judgment for society and the press that can be discussed within the public sphere. It is from this information that a healthy public debate for democracy is generated.
  
  

• We support the point made by the defense of the Semana Magazine, which warned that equating the disclosure of reserved information by a State officer with the publication of information of general interest by a media outlet is a dangerous precedent for press freedom. This creates obstacles to the fulfillment of the role of the media, and blurs its nature, as well as will limit public access to information of national interest.
  
  
• In the ruling, the judge argued that journalists expressed their opinion on what they heard, “by supplanting the judicial work assigned only to judges, even generating a priori value judgments about the conversations heard.” We reject censorship on the part of the judge, who restricts the exercise of journalism, by reproaching communicators to express their opinions in the face of the evidence of the procedure. Judicial activity in the head of judges does not exclude public debate that may be generated in respect of the judicial proceeding and even in respect of judicial activity.
  
  
• The decision to eliminate the content is disproportionate and ignores the fundamental core of freedom of freedom of expression. According to the Inter-American System of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court, if “an abuse” of freedom of speech that causes harm to others’ rights occurs, the least restrictive measures of freedom of speech should be used to remedy the damage. In this regard, the protection measure adopted in the writ for the protection of fundamental rights should be only be oriented to editing the fragments that violate the privacy of the claimant, rather than completely censoring the report. In other words, the removal of the parts in which the claimant was not part of the conversations should have not been ordered.
  
  
• The decision to order to investigate how the media outlet had access to the recordings, and thus, to determine criminal liabilities, is worrying because it does ignore that there are NO prohibited sources in the Colombian constitutional system, and seems to criminalize some. The issuance of court order copies to the media outlet can result in a mechanism for disregarding the reservation of the constitutionally protected news source. In this regard, we call on the judicial authorities to assess and respect the importance of journalists having this guarantee, without which their right to information would be at risk.
  
  
• The unedited disclosure of the telephone interceptions of the Monsalve family, is covered by the protection of press freedom and the constitutional guarantee of independence covered by the editorial line.
  
  

We endorse the decision of the media outlet to comply with the court order and withdraw the program. Overall, however, we will follow up on the development of this writ for the protection of fundamental rights procedure, considering that the court decision taken jeopardizes freedom of the press. 

The interceptions refer to one of the most important judicial cases in the history of the country; for this reason, press freedom must prevail, by materializing the general interest of knowing the truth and making it accessible to society and, thus, to encourage public debate and oversight against public authorities. 

Censoring the press and access to information by citizens, is a serious precedent for freedom of expression interests.  

 

Bogotá, September 30, 2020. On the compliance of the judgment of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, protecting the right to peaceful protest, the organizations that represent the claimants, state: 

1. All institutions must comply immediately and in good faith with all orders of the Court's judgment. To achieve the protection of the violated rights, we, the claimants, sent respectful requests for compliance to all institutions involved.
   
   
2. We welcome the willingness to comply expressed by the Attorney General’s Office of the Nation, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Mayor's Office of Bogotá. We emphasize that the Office of the Ombudsman appointed a follow-up commission, made up of high-level officials, and that the Attorney General appointed Carlos Medina Ramírez, Delegate for the Defense of Human Rights, as coordinator of the actions for the same purpose. We are prepared to contribute to all institutions for the purpose of materializing these court orders.
   
   
3. We invite the President of the Republic and the Minister of Defense, to fully comply with the orders of the Supreme Court, and to respect article 37 of the Constitution at all times, which guarantees the right to "assemble and demonstrate publicly and peacefully" and other fundamental rights related to citizen expression.
   
   
4. Taking into account the diversity of orders and institutions involved, we will ask the Civil Division of the Tribunal of Bogotá to establish a monitoring and compliance mechanism that guarantees the best possible information and the maximum participation of the claimants, as well as of civil society in general. This mechanism shall provide for the start of the preliminary issue of contempt proceeding, in the event of non-compliance by any of the institutions or officials responsible.
   
   
5. We express our dissatisfaction with the statements made by the Minister of Defense, in which he reiterates a generic and timeless apology for individual actions by members of the National Police. The order to offer apologies issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, has the redress of victims of systematic actions of police violence in the context of the protests developed in the National Strike of last November as its fundamental objective. The victims have expressed their disagreement with the minister's statements, as it was the case with Denis Cruz, Dilan Cruz's sister. We therefore request the Tribunal to ask the Minister for explanations of the reasons why he considers that his statement complies with the order of the Supreme Court of Justice.

Signers:
Campaign to Defend Freedom, Solidarity Committee for Political Prisoners, “José Alvear Restrepo” Lawyers Collective, dhColombia, Colombian Commission of Jurists, Humanidad Vigente, Dejusticia, Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP).

 

Bogotá, September 22, 2020. At the end of 2019, in the midst of the marches and mass mobilizations on the occasion of the National Strike of November 21, a group of people, social organizations, human rights defenders, students, journalists, professors from  Andes and El Rosario universities, next of kin of victims and victims of police violence, submitted a writ request for the protection of fundamental rights, calling for the protection of our fundamental right to protest, and freedom of expression and of the press.

In that legal action, we showed that the way the Government and the National Police acted in the context of last November's protests, violated the constitutional rights of those who protested, incurring in the following conducts: The arbitrary dissolution of peaceful protests, the anti-regulatory use of potentially lethal weapons, the disproportionate use of irritating chemical agents in the dissolution of protests, the arbitrary detention of people in the context of protests by the National Police, and attacks on journalists covering the demonstrations. 

Today, the Civil Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, protected the right of all people to demonstrate, and the duty of the authorities to “stop, prevent and punish the systematic, violent and arbitrary intervention of Law Enforcement Personnel in demonstrations and protests.” The decision is based on the constitutional and international protection of the right to protest, and that limitations on its exercise can only be legally defined; therefore, no other authorities can attribute themselves on the definition of how people can exercise their right, which, in the words of the Court, is to “dissent and make their thoughts public”

The Court found that there “existed – and can continue to exist – a repeated and constant disproportionate aggression by Law Enforcement Personnel against those who, peacefully, demonstrated” and those who were carrying out the journalistic coverage. Which shows “a serious and current threat, given the impulsive behavior of Law Enforcement Personnel, and especially of ESMAD (riot police), who has openly disregarded, not only its own manuals, but also principles and values of a constitutional level.”

Thus, the actions of Law Enforcement Personnel, without adequate control or accountability, “represent a risk, a serious and current threat to those who intend to march out and peacefully express their views, because their action, far from being isolated, is constant, and reflects a permanent aggression, identifiable in the context of the protests,” the judgment notes. In addition, the Court also found violations of rights related to mass raids by the Prosecutor's Office of the Nation in the homes and residences of those who have a legitimate interest in participating in the protests.

The orders issued by the Court to guarantee the fundamental right to protest were:

(i) That the Minister of Defense apologizes for the excesses of Law Enforcement Personnel, especially ESMAD, in the protests that began on November 21, 2019; 

(ii) To order members of the Government to maintain neutrality when non-violent demonstrations occur, even if they are aimed at questioning their own policies;

(iii) To establish a working group to restructure the guidelines on the use of force in demonstrations involving citizens, and to issue regulations in this field in accordance with international and constitutional standards;

(iv) To design a protocol of preventive, support  and follow-up actions to the reaction, use and verification of the legitimate force of the State and the protection of the right to peaceful citizen protest, including public and sustained reports when attacks on life and personal integrity occur;

(v) To issue a protocol allowing citizens and human rights organizations to carry out checks on cases of detention and transfer of persons during protests and,

(vi) To suspend the use of twelve-gauge shotguns for intervention in protests.

Orders were also issued to the Attorney General's Office of the Nation, The Prosecutor's Office of the Nation and the Office of the Ombudsman, to design plans for easy access to persons who require support for having been affected in the framework of protests, and to be able to make checks on persons detained, by citizens and human rights defenders organizations. And the Office of the Ombudsman was specifically ordered to carry out a strict, strong and intense control to all ESMAD actions until it is established that “it is able to make a moderate use of force and to guarantee and respect the rights and freedoms of people who intervene or not intervene in protests”. These entities shall produce periodic follow-up reports.

This ruling is more than timely, given the need to restore the rule of law and the safeguard life and social protest following the events of September 9 and 10 of 2020, where young people were murdered in different districts of Bogotá and Soacha in the context of demonstrations for the same police violence that the Supreme Court rejects in its decision. This ruling recognizes the urgency of imposing concrete limits on the action of the National Police and its Mobile Anti-riot Squad - ESMAD - by making a clear call for attention given the denial of these events by the National Government.

We welcome the decision of the Civil Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, that recognizes the importance of free expression in a democracy, and protects the rights of citizens to protest free from the threat of violence and police abuse in response to their complaints. We also urge the National Government, the Prosecutor's Office, the Office of the Attorney General, the National Police and the Mayor’s Office of Bogotá to promptly comply with the issued orders.

Fernando Ramírez and Vivian Newman, president and vice president of the Board of Directors of the Foundation for Press Freedom, are pleased to share with you the appointment of Jonathan Bock Ruiz as the new executive director of FLIP. We also congratulate Pedro Vaca, who leaves his position as director to assume the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression.

On September 15, the IACHR announced the appointment of Pedro Vaca Villarreal as Rapporteur, and mentioned that it took this decision “based on the professional qualities and experience of the candidate, taking into particular consideration his technical capacity, leadership, and ability to work effectively with States, civil society organizations, and other actors in the Inter-American Human Rights System”.

We are infinitely grateful to Pedro for these ten years of hard work. This new path is a clear reflection of his capabilities and dedication in defending freedoms. Because of his tireless work, FLIP grew up in its work team and expanded its mission. First, as a legal adviser, he litigated cases relevant to the guarantee of press freedom in Colombia, and for the search for justice in profoundly serious human rights violations. In 2013 he assumed the executive direction of FLIP, and since then he had not stopped on the search for guarantees for the journalistic activity in the country and justice for the families of victims.

Since FLIP is a user of the Inter-American Human Rights System, in the coming month, together with the outgoing director, we will make public the potential or apparent conflicts of interest both in the period of the new Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, as that of FLIP.

After his appointment as Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, the Board of Directors of FLIP met, and unanimously elected Jonathan Bock Ruiz as the new executive director of the Foundation. Jonathan was serving as deputy director.

This decision was made after evaluating Jonathan's high capacity to take office. Jonathan is a journalist, and holds a master's degree in international relations and journalism from Universidad Complutense of Madrid. He has worked for more than 15 years as a journalist, researcher and columnist for various media outlets. 

In 2012, Jonathan joined FLIP as protection adviser, and from that position he promoted several initiatives to prevent and address violence against journalists in the country. Later, in 2015, he led the Center for Freedom of Speech Studies, from where he promoted projects such as Information Cartography, Visible Advertisement and Consonante Journalism Lab. In addition, Jonathan had already served as executive director in charge during the periods when Pedro was absent for developing academic activities.

We are fully confident that Jonathan will work in favor of press freedom in Colombia, and that his capabilities will reveal new paths for FLIP. We are convinced that Pedro and Jonathan will work hard for freedom of the press in the region and in the country, each from different places and with the same conviction: Freedom of speech is indispensable for democracies.

Last Tuesday, August 4, the First Municipal Criminal Court of Tumaco granted the release of Gustavo Angulo Arboleda, alias Cherry, on the expiration of terms. Angulo Arboleda was under preventive detention on the trial that is advanced for the crimes of aggravated extortion kidnapping and conspiracy to commit a crime, in the case of the kidnapping and murder of Javier Ortega, Paúl Rivas and Efraín Segarra, a press team of El Comercio newspaper. The crimes occurred in March and April 2018 on the border between Colombia and Ecuador. 

Javier, Paúl and Efraín were engaged in journalistic work on the complex situation of law and order in the border area, characterized by the absence of institutions from both States. Two years later, the border continues to be a silenced area for journalism and the clarification of the crime against El Comercio’s press team seems far away. 

In the case of Angulo Arboleda, the administration of justice has been slow, with excessive delays in scheduling hearings. This shows that, despite the seriousness of the criminal acts, overcoming the state of impunity is not one of the priorities of the Colombian State. (You can review a timeline with the dates of the judiciary proceeding against Angulo Arboleda at the end of this press release.)

It is relevant to remember that Gustavo Alonso Ospina Hernández, alias Barbas , was also released, in June of this year; the one who has not appeared himself to the court hearings that continue to advance against him. 

In 2018, the State announced to the families and to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) that every effort would be made to bring those responsible to justice, and that commitment would seem to have been dropped over time. 

For Ricardo Rivas, brother of Paúl Rivas, access to justice has been outrageous and out wearing: “It is no less than outrageous to know and be aware that justice is not being delivered and does not exist in this case in Colombia. At the meetings we had with the IACHR in Washington, the State's commitment was that: To follow up, to speed up on this case that has been emblematic at the regional level. Unfortunately, we have not seen the results.” 

For Fundamedios, FLIP and the victims' families, these decisions are a clear sign of the risk of impunity that this case is taking. We therefore call on the States of Colombia and Ecuador to reaffirm their commitment to the fight against impunity in this case and, to adopt the recommendations suggested by the IACHR Special Monitoring Team. 

In this regard, the Colombian State, must adopt guidelines to prioritize the prosecution of justice in this case through the Prosecutor's Office of the Nation and the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in accordance with international standards for the investigation, trial and punishment of serious human rights violations.

“As victims, it also affects us. It makes us think that unfortunately it is a hard path on which we must continue to work and fight until we can achieve the objective of reaching said justice, truth and equity in this case”, Ricardo Rivas.