The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued a historic ruling in the case of journalist Jineth Bedoya Lima against Colombia, in which it analyzes for the first time the use of sexual violence as a form of silencing and control against a woman journalist in the context of the Colombian armed conflict.

The authorities' silence in the face of the unusual levels of violence against the press in the coverage of the national strike is surprising. Is it a form of support or denial of the aggressions? By action or omission, what the public entities have done sets a terrible precedent regarding the political will of the State to guarantee the right of citizens to receive information of high public interest.

We closed out the year with journalism in Colombia in a weakened state and uncertain as to what the incoming class of public officials will do next amid an ongoing crisis in media and press freedom. With the aim of contributing to the debate, in this edition we present a series of proposals to address nine threats to the future of journalism in Colombia.

By Jonathan Bock, Executive Director of the Foundation for the Liberty of the Press

The year 2021 marked a turning point for journalism in Colombia. Only a few months into the year, it had already become clear that there are no guarantees for those engaged in social protests movements. The Ministry of Defense implemented a new cyber patrol policy to monitor the content of posts on social media networks. Meanwhile, majorities in both the Senate and the House approved a bill to shield public officials from press investigations and increase punishments against journalists. In the end the bill was withdrawn thanks to pressure from civil society groups, but the episode laid bare the true intentions of legislators. 

Once again, we are confronted with the murder of a journalist, that of Marcos Efraín Montalvo, in Tulúa. And all the while, global problems intensified too, like the economic crisis facing the media industry, which has only been exacerbated by the pandemic. 

We finish the year with a press that is weakened and burdened by uncertainty over how the next batch of legislators, and the next president, mean to address these challenges. The officials elected this year must form a plan to save journalism in this country. Otherwise, the crisis is sure to deepen, and the situation for the press in Colombia will soon have more in common with Venezuela, Nicaragua or El Salvador. 

With the aim of contributing to the debate on how to address these issues, we have consulted experts, studied international cases and closely followed initiatives promoted by UNESCO, the United Nations, and the offices of the Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression. The result is a series of proposals to address nine problems that threaten journalism.

This roadmap is only a starting point. It should be supplemented with ideas from different sectors and reinforced through wide-ranging discussions that allow us to go deeper into key issue areas, such as the allocation of public resources to support the media. Also, it will be necessary to find the political will to guarantee greater independence in the public media system and to prevent embezzlement in the allocation of public advertising funds. 

This plan, based on the genuinely held beliefs of our leaders, should be coordinated with proposals that have emerged in other countries, all in the spirit of promoting the idea that access to the media and information be considered a fundamental public good.

Of course, we are aware that none of these solutions is without its drawbacks, and for the moment a perfect fix to the crisis does not exist. Nonetheless, these solutions are tailored to address each problem individually, considering its specific features and challenges, and designed, above all, not to further damage democracy.

Take note of this: Since its founding in 1996, FLIP has promoted the defense and protection of journalists to allow them to carry out their work without fear of reprisal. We have never endorsed a political party and we will not do so in the 2022 elections. FLIP's sole cause and objective is to promote journalism through the defense of the principle of freedom of expression. We will seek to advance this agenda with all candidates, and we will continue our oversight of those who occupy Congress as well as those who reach the Presidency. 

October 18, 2021, Washington, D.C., Bogotá - The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued a historic ruling in the case of journalist Jineth Bedoya Lima against Colombia, in which it analyzes for the first time the use of sexual violence as a form of silencing and control against a woman journalist in the context of the Colombian armed conflict.

"October 18, 2021 goes down in history as the day that a struggle, which began with an individual crime, led to the revindication of the rights of thousands of women victims and survivors of sexual violence and women journalists who leave part of their lives in their profession" said Jineth Bedoya, journalist, victim and survivor.

In its ruling, the Court declared Colombia responsible for the violation of various rights, including the right to personal integrity, personal liberty, honor and dignity, and freedom of thought and expression of journalist Jineth Bedoya Lima, as a result of the events that occurred on May 25, 2000, when she was intercepted, kidnapped and subjected to numerous physical, sexual and verbal assaults while reporting on crimes and human rights violations committed inside the Modelo prison in Bogotá.

The Inter-American Court recognized the existence of acts of torture that had a clear connection with her journalistic activity and were intended to punish, intimidate and silence her. The Court found that the attacks against the journalist not only violated her freedom of expression at the individual level, but also had a collective impact, both on Colombian society in its right to information and on other people who practiced journalism. In relation to the threats that Jineth Bedoya has received since at least 1999, the Court ruled that due to the lack of investigation these constitute acts of torture.

In its judgment, the Court found that there was serious, precise and consistent evidence of State involvement in the acts of physical, sexual and psychological torture against the journalist. The Court determined that these acts could not have been carried out without the acquiescence and collaboration of the State, or at least with its tolerance. This is even more serious considering that Jineth was investigating crimes committed by organized crime with the intervention of state agents inside the Modelo prison.

 Due to the severe climate of impunity and the use of gender stereotypes and discrimination in the investigation of Jineth Bedoya's case for more than two decades, the Court declared Colombia's international responsibility for the violation of the rights to due process, judicial protection and equality before the law due to the lack of due diligence in the investigations.

The ruling recognizes that Colombia is currently experiencing a serious context of threats, attacks and murders against social leaders and human rights defenders, including journalists.

The Court ordered a series of reparation measures, including symbolic measures and guarantees of non-repetition to repair the damage caused to Jineth Bedoya and to society in general.

Among the reparation measures ordered by the Court, we highlight the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish all those responsible for the crimes committed against the journalist, particularly taking into account that the Court determined that to date the masterminds and other co-perpetrators who may have participated in the kidnapping and assault of Jineth Bedoya and subsequent threats have not been determined.

 In addition, the Court ordered Colombia to carry out "a comprehensive policy for the protection of journalists, the creation of the "Investigative Center No es Hora de Callar," the design and implementation of a public system for the collection of updated data and figures on gender-based violence and on threats and violence against journalists and human rights defenders; and the creation of a fund for the prevention, protection and assistance of women journalists who are victims of gender-based violence.

The Court's judgement demonstrates the existence of the systematic use of sexual violence against women during the Colombian armed conflict and the particular risk faced by women journalists. It also demonstrates the existence of systematic and widespread impunity in relation to sexual violence during the conflict.

Jineth Bedoya has been tirelessly seeking justice for more than 20 years and has become a symbol and leader in the fight against sexual violence, particularly in relation to women journalists. This decision by the Inter-American Court is dignifying not only for Jineth but represents hope for the thousands of victims of sexual violence during the Colombian armed conflict.

The organizations representing the case in the international process are the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and the Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP). 

Press conference:

Rueda de prensa: 

This privacy and personal data protection policy (hereinafter, the "Policy") regulates the collection, storage, processing, management and protection of personal data of third parties received by the Foundation for Press Freedom (hereinafter, "FLIP") through the different channels of information collection that FLIP handles in the development of its activities.

FLIP is a non-profit organization incorporated by public deed 1231 of March 11, 1996, identified with NIT 800102745-9 and domiciled at Cr 25#37-06 in the city of Bogotá D.C., Colombia. The organization systematically monitors press freedom violations in Colombia, develops activities that contribute to the protection of journalists and the media, and promotes the fundamental right to freedom of expression and access to information.

The rights of the owners

FLIP respects the rights of the owners of the personal data it receives through the different means provided for that purpose for the development of its activities. In accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Law 1581 of 2012, the holders of personal data have the right to:

• Know, update and rectify their personal data.
  
  
• Request proof of the authorization granted for the processing of their personal data.
  
  
• Be informed, upon request, regarding the use that has been made of their personal data.
  
  
• File before the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (hereinafter, "SIC") complaints for violations of the provisions of Law 1581 of 2012 and other rules that modify, add or complement it.
  
  
• To revoke the authorization and/or request the deletion of your data, when the treatment does not respect the principles, rights and constitutional and legal guarantees. The revocation and/or suppression will proceed when the SIC has determined that the treatment violated the legal or constitutional provisions on personal data.
  
  
• Access free of charge to your personal data that have been subject to processing.
  
  
• The processing and type of personal data we collect
  
  

FLIP receives personal data, stores it properly and securely and uses it within the purposes of its mission, in accordance with the provisions of Law 1581 of 2012 and its regulatory decrees.

The type of personal data collected and the purposes of the processing will depend on the corresponding database to which the data is incorporated, as shown below.

FLIP's Communications Dissemination Database

FLIP collects personal data from the different people who provide their contact information in order to receive information related to FLIP's mission, such as alerts, communications, bulletins, news, research and calls.

For this database, data such as name, e-mail, telephone, address, place of work and position held are collected.

Database of employees, contractors and suppliers

FLIP also processes personal data of its employees, contractors and suppliers in order to comply with the contracts entered into with them and fulfill its legal obligations. For purposes of the above, depending on the subject, FLIP collects personal data such as:

• Name and identification number.
  
  
• Place and date of birth.
  
  
• Marital status.
  
  
• Contact information (address, telephone and e-mail).
  
  
• Resume.
  
  
• Occupation.
  
  
• Information related to social security contributions.
  
  
• Date of entry and date of retirement.
  
  
• Type and term of contract.
  
  
• Work day.
  
  
• Salary, fees and/or considerations, as the case may be.
  
  
• General medical, audiometric and optometric reports.
  
  
• Transfer of personal data to other countries

By accepting this Policy, you expressly agree to the transfer of your data to third countries, when FLIP so requires for the fulfillment of its purposes and the purposes set forth above.

Inquiries and complaints procedure

In case of inquiries and/or claims, the interested party must communicate his/her request clearly and expressly by e-mail to info@flip.org.co, to the physical address Cr 25 # 37-06 and/or to the telephone numbers 4870912 and 3406943.

For the attention of queries and claims, FLIP will apply the procedure established by Law 1581 of 2012.

Requests, queries and claims will be processed by the administrative and financial area of FLIP with the support of the legal team.

Validity of the Privacy Policy

This Policy shall be effective as of 09/13/2018. FLIP reserves the right to modify this policy at any time without prior notice. The modifications will be effective and effective against third parties as of its publication. For purposes of knowing the updated version of this Policy, it is recommended to visit the portal www.flip.org.co

The authorities' silence in the face of the unusual levels of violence against the press in the coverage of the national strike is surprising. Is it a form of support or denial of the aggressions? By action or omission, what the public entities have done sets a terrible precedent regarding the political will of the State to guarantee the right of citizens to receive information of high public interest. 

In days when the press was under attack, as it hadn't been seen in decades, it was a priority for the institutions called to guarantee freedom and plurality of information to fight for the protection of reporters. However, no state institution or public authority defended the practice of journalism in a clear and unambiguous manner. It was a fundamental first step in the urgency of finding specific measures to guarantee that the vital work done by the press could be done without fear of reprisals or injury. The absence of this defense ended up generating an atmosphere of permissiveness, encouraging censorship and, consequently, denying independent information to the public. The State failed to fulfill its responsibility to protect a right established in the Constitution. 

Control entities made of paper 

On June 8, 2021, the Attorney General's Office notified the journalists of the media LocoSapiens that they would close the investigation opened as a result of the aggressions suffered by three journalists of the team by the security forces in Sibaté, Cundinamarca. This was the justification: "However, the pertinent acts of verification were carried out, establishing that the complainant has not shown any 

interest in the facts denounced, for which reason there is no material evidence that could be useful for the investigation to be successful, thus concluding that it is impossible to have the necessary information". 

A month had passed since the journalists filed the complaint. The Prosecutor's Office had the evidentiary material of the aggression which, in addition, was widely known by the public opinion: in the video it is heard how the reporters shout at the

top of their lungs that they are the press while they take refuge behind some bushes trying to dodge the shots fired by the police. Suspending the investigation of this case ignores all the constitutional mandates of The Prosecutor's Office. The following day FLIP published a statement informing about the situation and hours later, the entity announced that it would reopen the investigation. 

For FLIP, the Prosecutor's Office does not seem to have the intention to look into the origins of these aggressions nor to adopt preventive measures, much less a clear commitment to investigate and punish this violence. The lack of diligence with which investigations are being conducted, particularly in those cases where public agents are responsible, is worrying. 

Late night mayoralties 

Few local authorities have issued responses to the violence against the press. Most of them have been belated, some of them disarticulated with the direct and sustained aggressions of the two months of protests, and others were reactive and with political interest to position a message of alleged guarantee of freedom of the press before the IACHR. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

In the case of Bogota and Medellin, the mayoress and the mayor made statements on June 29 and July 2, respectively. Their messages addressed only very specific cases. In the capital of the country, at the time of Claudia Lopez's communication, 65 aggressions had been registered, and in Medellin 33. The lack of support from the highest authorities in the cities is alarming, it favors the continuity of aggressions and invisibilizes the seriousness of violence against the press. 

On the other hand, FLIP has not received direct communications from the mayors of Popayán and Cali, despite the fact that both cities have been focal points of violence against journalists during the days of the strike. 

Public force as the aggressor, not guarantor 

The acts of police brutality committed during the months of demonstrations prompted a national conversation about the police. Its outcome was the announcement by President Duque that he will push for a reform before the Congress. 

The abuse of force by police officers has had a direct impact on freedom of expression and journalistic practice, and since the demonstrations of 2019, protest spaces and militarized places are an extremely hostile environment for the press: rubber bullets, damage to equipment, injuries and threats are part of the coverage. In total, 216 journalists were assaulted by an agent. 

The shortcomings of the armed forces in terms of training on freedom of expression issues were fully exposed. The high stigmatization that exists in the institution towards the work of the media was also evident. Normally, before or after an aggression, the agents would launch some phrase such as "tabloid press" or some 'sobering' comment about how reporters should do their work. 

The Minister of Defense, Diego Molano, far from assuming a position in accordance with this reality, deepened the stigmatization: in different spaces, closed and public, he attacked freedom of expression and reproached the free flow of

information in social networks. 

The minister was the visible head of the campaign #ColombiaEsMiVerdad which he defended saying: "information like this is digital terrorism and its false", "it is false that the police attack the public peacefullt demonstrating" and "let's unite, lies generate hate". 

Far from supporting the work of the press and the free flow of information, what this proposal did was to point out and put at risk the journalists who cover these scenarios. 

When the Congress advanced the failed motion of censure to Molano, he did not make any acknowledgement, nor did he pronounce himself on the risk of self-censorship generated by this type of messages. The minister reaffirmed in his speech: "Many times it is very easy to tell lies that do not require evidence and move quickly through social media. But it is up to us public officials to assume the truth (...) as a public official we assume that responsibility".

Police officers and private citizens repeat patterns of aggressions against journalists, they fuel stigmatization and obstruct the circulation of information. They also forget that the press is not there to ratify their speeches or extol their image. These are the forms of aggression and the numbers of aggressions against journalists that FLIP has documented between April 28 and July 19. 

TOTAL NUMBER OF ASSAULTS: 300 / TOTAL NUMBER OF VICTIMS: 342 1. AGGRESSIONS BY THE SECURITY FORCES AGAINST THE PRESS 

Members of the police have been the biggest aggressors against journalists covering social demonstrations. Despite the fact that their duty is to protect citizens and guarantee the exercise of journalism, they have beaten, kicked, shot, detained and threatened those who are doing the coverage from the streets. 

TOTAL: 181 ASSAULTS / 224 VICTIMS 

7 categories of aggression by the security forces against journalists:7 categories of aggression by the security forces against journalists: 

1. Physical assault (8 patterns) 
2. Threats (2 patterns) 
3. Illegal detention (2 patterns) 
4. Obstruction of the journalistic exercise (3 patterns) 
5. Harassment (1 pattern) 
6. Theft or removal of journalistic material (3 pattern) 
7. Violation of the source confidentiality (1 pattern) 
8. AGGRESSIONS BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AGAINST THE PRESS 

Although the responsibility level of a police officer is very different from that of a civilian, and so should be the way they ought behave in scenarios of social protest, citizens must also respect the exercise of the press. These aggressors may be demonstrators or civilians in favor or against social protest. 

TOTAL: 79 ASSAULTS / 93 VICTIMS 

10 categories of aggression: 

1. Physical assault 
2. Threats 
3. Damage to infrastructure 
4. Stigmatization 
5. Exclusion 
6. Harassment 
7. Obstruction of the journalistic exercise
8. Theft or removal of journalistic material 
9. Arbitrary actions in social media
10. Espionage or invasion 

In addition to the violence against the press, the State has criticized and lectured on what good journalism is, questioning its democratic value. There are several forms of journalism, all of them valid, and it is the audiences who decide how good or bad they consider them to be. 

In the face of the violence against journalists, there was no indignation or messages of rejection, but there were attacks and sobering stigmatizations about what "good journalism" is. Citizen media have stood out in the midst of these aggressions, but have been labeled as enemies of the State. 

What's desirable journalism? How much objectivity is necessary? What is the matrix and the limits that the media should follow? Turning the identity and mission of journalism into a public debate ends up being a defeat for plurality and a victory for authoritarianism and for those officials who deepen the fragility of Colombian journalism. Do we debate about good and bad accountants or do we accept that their heads are broken with a baton for not having filed their income tax returns properly or because when they did it they had a whiff of sensationalism in their eyes? 

The recent months have been the most violent against the press in recent decades. In less than 90 days, 342 journalists who were covering social demonstrations were victims of some kind of aggression. Some 216 were assaulted by law enforcement officers. 

There was no indignation, preventive measures or messages of support for reporters. There were, on the contrary, sobering messages on how to do good journalism. We heard it from the government, mayors, and commanders of the security forces. They also launched phrases showing their contempt and stigmatization for those citizens who "carry a camera and play at being journalists". All kinds of adjectives: sectarian journalism, the activist old guy, alternative media, prepaid. All of them. 

Generating this debate, inside and outside journalism, installing the issue as a concern, and swelling the journalistic exercise with all kinds of questions has called into question the value of a democratic pillar and has brought to the razor's edge the mantras that had been installed in free societies: that the exercise of journalism is fundamental for a citizenry that defends the expression of its ideas. 

Read and download here the editing of Pages for Freedom of Speech Amidst the rustling of blows and attacks, grass also grew. The 2021 demonstrations will mark a milestone for citizen media and for plurality. The penetration of social networks, lower costs and civic mobilization have served as a springboard for university media, photographers and empirical journalists to be the protagonists of a new story. Their impact on audiences is evident in the

streets of Medellín, Popayán or Cali. A phenomenon that had already been announced in November 2019. 

At the same time that groups of citizens protect them, they are subject to persecution, threats and constant stigmatization that seek to label them as enemies of the State, the same invisible gags that have operated in Colombia in the most recent years. 

The expansion, consolidation, and constant presence of these citizen media challenge the logics of the establishment and offer citizens opportunities for voice, particularly to communities that lack constant access to media. "In the community, for the community, about the community and by the community," reads a Unesco slogan about this journalism. 

There are no single, valid answers about the journalism’s mission. There are journalisms, that are, different and opposite models. All of them are valid, as bad or as good as their audience decides. However, this is a discussion that should be strengthened and maintained in the academy and in the daily practice of the media, not in the corridors or in the offices of public buildings. 

Amid a national strike and widespread protests that have roiled cities across Colombia in recent weeks, journalists covering the events have been subjected to violence and intimidation in incidents that span the country. 

Since the unrest began in late April, FLIP has documented at least 159 separate assaults on 184 journalists, and it isn’t restricted to the actions of one side. These include violent assaults on members of the press by government forces and protestors alike. The attacks mark a serious uptick in violence against the press in Colombia; FLIP documented similar numbers—150 attacks against 182 journalists—over the course of the three years preceding this latest round of unrest. 

Santiago Amaya, a journalism student and reporter for Revista Solsticio was covering a protest on May 1, in Duitama, in northeastern Colombia, when he was encircled by half a dozen uniformed police who subjected him to torture and arbitrary detention, and threatened him with extrajudicial execution. Police officers took his backpack, looked through and selectively deleted his photos, and stole the sim card from his cell phone. Then they beat him on his arms and back and bloodied his nose with a baton, simulated a lynching on him, threw him in a prison cell, told him his profession—journalism—was worthless and that he was going to die. Finally, they released him in a rural area, telling him simply to "run."

On May 12, in the town of Popayán, in western Colombia, Kevin Acosta, a reporter for the digital medium Red Alterna, was taking video of a uniformed police officer beating a young protestor when Acosta was surrounded by six police officers, thrown to the ground and beaten across his head, arms and chest as police tried to take away his cell phone. Throughout the incident—as well as a previous attack by the riot control squad of the Colombian National Police—Acosta was clearly identified as a journalist with a press vest, helmet and visible press credentials. Also in Popayán, journalist Óscar Solarte reported being pelted with rocks by hooded demonstrators, while similarly-attired protestors repeatedly tried to take journalist Juan Ortega’s phone after he recorded video of protestors throwing stones at City Hall. Elsewhere reporters have been severely injured in direct attacks on the press from government forces, like in the rural town of Sibaté, where on the early morning of May 6, riot police shot directly at reporters who were clearly identified as members of the press with helmets and press credentials. Though two journalists were injured in the attack the ambulance they called for never arrived. The entire incident was broadcast live. 

The above represent a tiny segment of the 145 assaults on reporters covering these demonstrations since they began. 

The Foundation for Freedom of the Press (FLIP) condemns attacks on the press in the strongest possible terms and calls on leaders in government and the protest movement to publicly disavow attacks against the press and express zero tolerance for the practice. Sadly, though police are responsible for roughly half of the assaults on journalists covering the protest movement, the national government has yet to issue any public condemnation on acts of violence against the press and local authorities have been largely silent as well. 

Meanwhile, troubling developments behind the scenes suggests government officials are working to curtail press freedom further. Local and national authorities have repeatedly refused to release official information related to the protest movement, law enforcement activities, and the victims of violence. At the same time that the government has refused to grant the press access to official information, it has embarked on a troubling, anti-democratic campaign to silence and discredit non-official sources of information. On May 6, top brass in the Colombian military and police released a new initiative aimed at combating what it called “digital terrorism”—the spread of false and fake information masquerading as news reports and government pronouncements. In response to the initiative, some journalists have informed FLIP that they plan to self-censor in order to avoid being monitored, blocked or worse by the authorities. While fake news and false reports are a real problem, the way to combat them is not through state-sponsored censorship, but through a robust and free press able to report openly on consequential people and events. 

Elsewhere in government, officials have allegedly been caught on tape discussing strategies for pressuring the cash-strapped media to spin reports in favor of the ruling party by dangling lucrative advertising contracts, a strategy the Duque government has employed in the past.

Requests 

Amid ongoing demonstrations, FLIP reiterates the following requests:

1. We demand that President Duque and the Minister of the Interior publicly reject violence against the press and send a clear message of zero tolerance for the members of the government forces involved in said aggressions.
   In addition, we call on the Duque government not to use the campaigns against disinformation as a tool to stigmatize the press and criminalize the dissemination of information. FLIP reiterates that authorities and public figures must not encourage censorship. Where complaints against the press exist, their duty is to channel them through the proper constitutional means that exist to express disagreements.
2. We invite leadership of the national strike to send a message of support for the work of journalists, disavow attacks on the press, and to express any disagreements with the media in a respectful manner that does not threaten press freedom.
   
   
3. The Attorney General of the Nation announced that it will investigate the ESMAD agents for the violence deployed against the press in Sibaté, Cundinamarca, on May 6. This investigation should be extended to all attacks against the press in which members of the security forces have participated.
   We also request the attorney general to urgently and publicly call upon all officials to fulfill their duty to release information to the press in a timely manner, and initiate disciplinary investigations against those who do not.  
   
   

4. We ask local authorities to provide a public and satisfactory explanation of events that resulted in bodily injury to members of the press who were covering  demonstrations. In particular, we insist on a timely response to the request made a few days ago to the mayors of Cali, Bogotá, Medellín, Popayán and Sibaté, where serious acts of violence have been observed against journalists covering protests.