• On World Press Freedom Day (May 3), FLIP and ARTÍCULO 19 México, unite to curb judicial harassment of journalists and human rights defenders.
  
  
• In the framework of this date, FLIP and ARTÍCULO 19 México, with support from Justice for Journalists, present the report: Laws of Silence, Judicial Harassment to Freedom of Speech in Mexico and Colombia. 
  
  
• Judicial persecution and harassment are the abuse of judicial mechanisms to censor and intimidate persons who disclose information of public interest, whether for their journalistic work and/or for the defense of human rights.

Read the report here

Judicial harassment is a form of aggression involving legal actions against journalists or whistleblowers who investigate and report, for the most part, on corruption and irregularities in State entities. Some of these actions are usually civil lawsuits, criminal charges, administrative proceedings, or constitutional actions (in the case of Colombia). 

Such lawsuits are often supported in the defense of goodwill, honor, and privacy of public officers and individuals with public exposure. The judicial processes that are undertaken are aimed at intimidating journalists, affecting them emotionally and economically, and discouraging their investigative work. 

FLIP and ARTÍCULO 19 have noticed an increase in judicial harassment cases in recent years. For both organizations, it is very worrying that both Colombian and Mexican legislation have regulations that allow judicial harassment, and that many judges and officers of the judicial apparatus issue judgments against journalists completely opposed to international standards of freedom of speech. 

Therefore, in judicial harassment, the victim is not only the journalist or whistleblower, but also the society that sees its rights repressed. The rights to receive information and freedom of the press and of expression of all citizens are being oppressed.

 

The Report

Laws of Silence is a report that offers a parallel look at cases and conditions of judicial harassment in Mexico and Colombia. The authors discuss laws that facilitate judicial harassment in both countries, and the patterns of State behavior in the face of this form of aggression against the press. They also feature cases of journalists and human rights defenders who have faced excessive and arbitrary judicial proceedings, and explain the different damages suffered by victims of judicial harassment: Economic, labor, emotional, and even physical, because often, lawsuits come together with threats and attacks on the integrity of journalists.

 

The Figures

Judicial harassment is not a new strategy of silencing. It has been used worldwide against social organizations, but there now seems to be a boom in the use of this mechanism against the press. Between 2018 and 2020, FLIP recorded 140 cases of judicial harassment of journalists in Colombia. In the same period, ARTÍCULO 19 recorded 81 cases. 

FLIP began recording cases of judicial harassment in Colombia in 2017, when 14 cases were counted. In 2018 there were 38. 66 in 2019, and finally 36 in 2020. 

According to ARTÍCULO 19’s records, only one case was recorded in Mexico in 2015. For 2016, there were 13. Again, 13 in 2017. 21 in 2018. 21 in 2019, and finally a rise to 39 in 2020. 

 

The Cases

The Laws of Silence report presents eight cases of journalists and human rights defenders from both countries, including those of Colombian journalists Gonzalo Guillén, Juan Pablo Barrientos, Edison Lucio Torres, and Sergio Mesa. 

In this systematization of cases, the authors were able to see some similar patterns, such as the fact that the plaintiffs or censors are almost always State officers or public personalities, such as politicians and influential religious figures. 

It is alarming that in Colombia and Mexico the judicial apparatus is provided for the service of private and individual interests. Judicial harassment punishes the messenger, the complainant, and thus the right of everyone to receive information and for the freedom of speech. 

 

 

On Monday, March 15, the public hearing in the case of Jineth Bedoya Lima began at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. At issue before the court is the State’s responsibility for threats against Jineth Bedoya, as well as her kidnapping, torture and rape in May 2000. During the hearing, the National Agency for Legal Defense of Colombia, represented by Camilo Gómez, alleged that the majority of the Court’s judges are not impartial in the case, and announced that it will present a request for recusal against five of the six judges due to an alleged lack of procedural guarantees. The State decided to leave the hearing, and the State’s witness did not appear to testify before the Court.

For the Colombian State, the questions and comments made by the judges, including Judge Elizabeth Odio Benito, President of the Court, revealed bias in favor of Jineth Bedoya. As her legal representatives, we, CEJIL and FLIP, state unequivocally that the comments from the judges were dignifying and appropriate, as they had just heard the courageous testimony from a survivor of grave human rights violations; the comments did not in any way prejudge the State’s responsibility in the case.  

In fact, it is the job and the obligation of judges to question witnesses about facts germane to the case—this includes context, which helps the judges to understand the scope of violations and the measures that could constitute reparation for the victim. In her testimony, Jineth Bedoya answered questions related to the object of her declaration, as pre-approved by the Court. This included: her work as a journalist and the journalistic investigations she carried out in and prior to 2000, the risks she faced as a result, her requests for protection and the State response to this situation. Likewise, she narrated the events of May 25, 2000 and the impact that these events have had on her life ever since.

In her testimony, Jineth stated that National Police officers suggested that she interview paramilitary leaders at La Modelo prison in order to mitigate the threats against her as a result of her investigative journalism. She stated that this interview was a “trap” that led to her kidnapping, torture, and rape. She also described how the perpetrators stated to her that their acts were a “lesson” or “punishment” for her journalism. She described multiple pieces of evidence of the responsibility of State agents for her kidnapping, which have been ignored in the prosecutor’s investigation; in contrast, she described how she was revictimized in the course of the investigation, being called twelve times to make statements describing the torture and rape to which she was subjected. The State’s representative recognized this revictimization at the public hearing.

As organizations that represent Jineth Bedoya, we denounce the State’s attitude in this case, which demonstrates the State’s indifference to the victims of sexual violence during Colombia’s armed conflict and denies dignified spaces for access to justice. Colombia’s decision to leave the public hearing is unprecedented and gives cause for concern about its commitment to justice for human rights violations and its eventual compliance with the decision of the Court.

Moreover, we denounce this action as part of a strategy to delegitimize the Inter-American Court and create new obstacles in this process, which continues to punish Jineth Bedoya for making her voice heard. This is a new attempt to silence her.

As legal representatives, we call on Colombia to reappear at the scheduled hearing, in compliance with its international human rights obligations and in accordance with the Court’s order. Appearance at the hearing will contribute to the dignity and redress that this international legal process can provide, regardless of the eventual content of the decision.

The Colombian State has again aimed its weapons, resources, and intimidation capacity against journalists. This situation is growing during the economic emergency due to the pandemic affecting the media industry.

An alarming espionage operation, the abuse of police force against the press during demonstrations, and the disdainful and stigmatizing attitude of higher-level officials happen with such a glaring and reiteration, deems it as not impossible to assume it as a message in which the press is understood as opposition, in which there is no tolerance toward critical thinking.

In 2020, the deterioration of the media and of the state of freedom of expression in the country deepened.  Violence against the press occurs with the same systematicity and permissiveness as in past decades, during Colombia's darkest years.   In medium-sized cities such as Puerto Libertador in Córdoba or in capitals such as Arauca, there is no possibility of practicing journalism freely. Dozens of municipalities can be added to these two examples, where reporters must calculate each news before it is published and do their work with the permanent feeling that they will be threatened at some point.

 

In the last four years, eight journalists have been killed in the country and 618 threats have been reported; it is the second deadliest country on the continent after Mexico. During the year of the pandemic, despite general confinement, 193 journalists were threatened, 10% more than  in 2019.  Two journalists were killed:  Abelardo Liz and Felipe Guevara.  This happens while billions of Colombian pesos are invested in a protection mechanism that has unfortunately lost effectiveness and fails without legitimacy, pending on the promised re-engineering plan.

This atmosphere has enclosed the press into self-censorship. This is admitted by media owners, directors, and reporters alike.  Of course, they do so in a confidential manner. Most of the time, society, which relies on the press to be informed, is not aware of the existence of such self-censorship, or may not know on its prevalence level among journalists. Nonetheless, the price we pay as a society is extremely high, since in a democratic system it is essential that citizens can exercise their right to information on any subject.

Journalism in Colombia is a patient with comorbidities, and the pandemic threatens to send him to intensive care. Despite this, the government ignored the red flags that the journalism sector has waived with force. For President Duque, priorities are in other matters. For example, to install a new paradigm, to normalize his information bubble, and forge a misleading direct dialog with the citizenry. He has spent at least twenty-six billion Colombian pesos on prioritizing his institutional communication and treats it as if it were superior to the plurality that journalism offers. This aggressive strategy strengthens the risk of unprecedented propaganda practices in the country.

In the first weeks of 2021, some signs were given that the Government will finally adopt economic measures for the sector, otherwise the survival of many media, plurality and the future of professional journalism could be jeopardized. 

The dozens of journalists who were followed and spied understand that they are the enemies for the State. The same is assumed by community media reporters and indigenous journalists, who mourn on each murdering of one of their peers.  So do citizens who dare to ask. The only opportunity for this Government to prove them wrong is to investigate and to let the victims know the truth, as it has consistently promised. But it does not do it, and questions remain: Who shoots? Who makes the threats? Who gave the order for the profiling?

Download the magazine here

 

Journalists Abelardo Liz and Felipe Guevara were murdered during 2020. Their cases exposed the crude violence that journalists continue to face, both by law enforcement Personnel and by criminal gangs.

 

Abelardo: The death that Indigenous Peoples Mourn and Show the Indolence of the State

Abelardo, in a tragic coincidence, died on August 13, the day of the anniversary of the killing of Jaime Garzón. The indigenous journalist was in Corinto, Cauca, covering an eviction by the police and the army. During the confrontations, he was wounded by a firearm. Law enforcement personnel claimed that the bullet came from illegal groups that had also fired; however, the indigenous community denies that there had been clashes with the guerrillas that day.

 

Neither Ivan Duque, nor any authority spoke on the subject. Six months later, the case has progressed extraordinarily little, and the responses of the Prosecutor's Office and the Army on the progress of the investigation are insufficient. There is no guarantee that this is being carried out in a serious and impartial manner.

 

If you want to read the full report about the murder of this indigenous journalist, and how this seriously affects a community, go to page 7 of our PDF magazine named Páginas para la libertad de expresión.

The Journalist of the Neighborhoods of Cali

Felipe was only 27 years old when he was killed at Mariano Ramos neighborhood in Cali, Valle del Cauca. He worked as a judicial journalist at Q’hubo newspaper, the most widely read popular newspaper in the city. He was shot outside his home on December 21st and died in intensive care on December 23rd.

 

Despite the repeated threats that Felipe had received in the past, the first reaction of the Cali Police Commander was to deny the hypothesis that the murder was related to his journalistic work. At the beginning of January 2021, one of the alleged perpetrators was captured, a 16-year-old boy who denied charges of aggravated homicide and the manufacture, trafficking, and carrying of firearms.

 

This murder seriously affects freedom of the press. After these events, some reporters may prefer to move away from certain areas, and to pull other items off the agenda.

 

To read the full story about this journalist, read page 15 of Páginas para la libertad de expresión PDF magazine.

 

Here you can view the entire magazine, or you can download it to your device.

It has been a year since Semana Magazine revealed that the Army used its intelligence resources to surveil and profile more than thirty national and international journalists. The folders contained personal, work, family, friends, and colleagues data. After the report of Semana, we came to know on other fourteen cases at FLIP. Despite the stir the news caused, today is little we know about the contents of those folders.

 

In addition, there is a lack of consensus between the Attorney General’s Office and the Office of the Prosecutor on the list and the number of persons included, since the former identified 29 persons and the members of four organizations and one media outlet as victims; while the Office of the Prosecutor assured that only twenty people had been the victims. Nor is it known what the filing of charges were made by the Attorney General's Office toward the thirteen military personnel who would have made illegal use of the Army's computer intelligence to carry out these surveillance.

 

At FLIP, we had access to the testimonies of some of the journalists who were victims of these illegal profiling, to know the individual and collective impact that these actions of intimidation and stigmatization generated on journalistic work.

 

Find out what is known about this case on page 9 of Páginas para la libertad de expresión PDF. You can view or dowload here.

*FLIP learned that on the afternoon of December 23, journalist Felipe Guevara died of medical complications caused by the gunshot wounds. This news saddens us infinitely. We accompany Felipe's family and friends.

Attack to the life of journalist Felipe Guevara in Cali 

December 22, 2020

FLIP rejects the attack on which Felipe Guevara, a journalist with Q’Hubo in the city of Cali, was the victim*. The Foundation is Concerned that the Police Will Early Rule Out the Relationship of these Events to his Journalistic Activity. FLIP calls on the authorities to conduct a serious, impartial, and diligent investigation into these events, and to consider the relationship with his trade as the first line of inquiry.

According to FLIP, on the night of December 21, Guevara was shot four times, affecting his chest, stomach, and leg. The event occurred in Mariano Ramos neighborhood, belonging to Commune 16 in the east of Cali, where the communicator lives. The journalist was rushed to a clinic in the city where he is currently under reserved prognosis.

Guevara has worked for the last three years for Q’hubo newspaper of El País publishing house, and currently covers judicial issues. Sources consulted by FLIP, including fellow journalists from Guevara, have said that for a couple of years he had received threats that would be related to his journalistic work.

Precisely, and according to the information gathered by FLIP, following these threats Guevara had to leave Mariano Ramos neighborhood in 2017, after he made some notes about a criminal gang operating in that sector. As people close to the communicator know, he had lodged a complaint with the authorities about these events. In addition, in 2018 and August of this year, Guevara again reported threats and harassment, and stated that he no longer wanted to leave his home because he did not feel secure.

The Foundation expresses its concern about the journalist's background to his safety, and demands that the authorities investigate this case promptly, and to consider the relationship with his journalistic work as a first hypothesis. It is worrying that the National Police has ruled out from the outset that the attack on Guevara could be related to his work as a journalist. General Manuel Antonio Vásquez Prada, commander of Cali Metropolitan Police, said that “they preliminarily rule out that this event was related to their profession.”

The Foundation is in solidarity with the communicator's relatives and wishes a speedy recovery. In addition, FLIP joins in the appeal for awareness made by journalists from the south-west of the country to this terrible attack.

The representatives of Bedoya Lima warn on the continuing negligence, lack of commitment and disrespect for the victim by the Prosecutor's Office of the Nation. 

On December 17, the Prosecutor's Office of the Nation did not attend the meeting convened by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to follow up on the implementation of the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in favor of Jineth Bedoya Lima. The Office of the Prosecutor was to report on progress in criminal investigations into the events of May 25, 2000 that threatened against the life, integrity, and freedom of speech of the journalist. 

The entity justified its failure to attend on the alleged existence of prior commitments, which is inadmissible, as the meeting had been scheduled more than a month earlier*. It appears that meeting the international obligations of the case is in the second order of priority for the entity.

It is profoundly serious that, even in view of the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Colombian State has taken no serious and effective measures to protect the life and integrity of Jineth Bedoya; and to investigate, judge and punish the events of which she was the victim.

At the last meeting to follow up on precautionary measures that was advanced in June of this year, Bedoya Lima reiterated her disapproval of the entity's lack of interest in advancing her case and stressed her dismay in the face of permanent inaction. On that occasion, the urgency of the organization's updating of the collection of evidence elements — which have been ordered more than a year ago — and the prosecution of the criminal events in which the beneficiary is registered as a victim was highlighted. 

Similarly, we note that the Office of the Prosecutor has not made progress in investigating the perpetrators of the crimes for which the journalist was a victim. The chronic lethargy of its investigations contrasts with the multiplicity of harassment that Bedoya has received in the last year, without the entity fulfilling its function of investigating these crimes and channeling further investigations. 

For the above, we warn that the Colombian State is in arrears with taking the necessary measures to guarantee the human rights of the journalist, and to comply with the measures ordered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; the inability to make progress in clarifying the events of which the journalist has been a victim is a serious sign of impunity, thereby sending a grim message in a country with extremely high rates of violence against journalists.  

The lack of due investigation and punishment of crimes against journalists is an unfortunate constant in Colombia, that undoubtedly originates the responsibility of the State, and generates a greater risk for exercising freedom of expression and of the press. The systematic lack of institutional response to crimes against the press is a self-censorship enhancer that must be structurally corrected.

 

*Update: On December 22, FLIP received a request for rectification from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that "in a timely manner, the Prosecutor's Office of the Nation reported its failure to attend that meeting on the basis of the day of the Judicial Branch, as provided for in Decree 2766 of 1980". However, this was not the information shared during the December 17 meeting. 

 

For more than two years, the case for death threats against Daniel Samper Ospina, Matador and María Antonia García de la Torre has not been resolved. Journalists were threatened via Twitter by Ariel Ortega between March and April 2018. One of the tweets said, “Bastard fool, you live on insulting, and when you are told the truth in your silly face you weep like a sissy girl. We miss the AUC so much to silence this meddler!”

The events quickly became media disseminated, and the Office of the Prosecutor itself rejected the threats and assured that the investigation would be a priority. Also, the Minister of Defense of that time, Luis Carlos Villegas, ordered the National Police to investigate the threats to 'Matador'. Villegas indicated that "those who hide on a telephone or computer to obstruct free expression must also receive the weight of the law."

Despite initial support from national entities, the case has progressed truly little.

Since February 4, 2019, the Office of the Prosecutor has accused Ortega as the alleged perpetrator of the threats. The Office of the Prosecutor has sufficient evidence to ensure that Ortega is the author of the threats. In fact, in 2018 Ortega accepted that the tweets had been his own and publicly said that he was repentant. 

In June of the same year, the defense filed a request for the principle of opportunity with the Prosecutor's Office. This would give Ortega the chance to have an absolutory judgment. The process lasted approximately 6 months and never advanced. The Office of the Prosecutor insisted several times even though the victims expressed their disagreement. That is why the request never had a chance to move forward.

After more than a year in which the case did not move forward, only until November 4 of this year did the preparatory hearing begin. It is intended that all the evidence on the case be made known for consideration at the trial. However, there is still time for the moment for the sentence to take place, as the preparatory hearing has not even ended, and the judge is still waiting to reschedule it. 

One year has elapsed between each of the hearings in the process. It is difficult to understand how a case that a priority for the Office of the Prosecutor was turned out to be delayed by the same entity. There are few answers to why the process has been so delayed, when this was a case with evidence and the author was identified from the beginning. 

“It is imperative that a precedent is set, and that there be an exemplary punishment for Ariel Ortega, because the message of zero tolerance should be sent in the face of death threats on social networks against journalists”: Maria Antonia.

 

Threats: A major Problem in Colombia

 

FLIP has recorded that threats are the main assault on journalists. Each year cases increase, almost to double. In 2016, 90 intimidations against journalists took place; the following year, 129; in 2018, 200 cases were reported, and in 2019, 137 threats were filed. Along the same lines, Reporters Without Borders ranks Colombia as the country 130 with the worst rating to exercise press freedom. 

These threats have a frightening and deterrent effect, that leads to the silencing of the press. Where there is fear, the product of possible attacks related to journalistic work, and an environment of self-containment or self-censorship is promoted. 

“Threatening a journalist to death, not only affects that particular human being and his family; it endangers press freedom, strengthens censorship, and empowers those hidden forces that use violence as a means of coercion.” Maria Antonia.

The lack of compliance and speed with investigations in cases of attacks on the press, leads to the chronic recurrence of violence, since it can be understood that there will be no exemplary sanctions. The Office of the Prosecutor and the judges need to make prompt and diligent progress in these cases to deter attacks on the press and combat a hostile environment against online press.

 

On several occasions, former prosecutor Néstor Humberto Martínez referred to the press in a stigmatizing manner, and has questioned, without grounds, the journalistic investigations into matters related to his actions as General Prosecutor of the Nation. This sets up a strategy to intimidate journalists who investigate and publish information of the utmost public relevance. 

On November 26, former prosecutor Martínez discredited the investigative work carried out by various journalists in a political control session in the Senate's First Committee. He pointed out to Edison Bolaños, a reporter from El Espectador newspaper, alleging that he did not perform an independent or diligent work, and stated that editorial decisions were intended to cover up Jesus Santrich.

In his own terms: “Oh, they will not show that one because they want to play on the side of the defender of Santrich and of Mr. Bolaños, that this was cocaine was from the Office of the Prosecutor. And before that publication I told Mr. Bolaños in writing, I have the writings here, and I told the newspaper director: ‘gentlemen, that cocaine was not from the Office of the Prosecutor’. It does not matter, they did not even bother to publish that was not true, in the words of the former general prosecutor.”

In addition, Martinez emphatically questioned the journalist's independence, accusing him of not having published all the information, to cover up someone, without showing any evidence*.  Requiring the complete publication of the investigative material of a journalist constitutes a violation of the confidentiality of the source that, in addition, can endanger both the source and the journalist. 

Martínez did not support any of these serious accusations with evidence, and on the contrary wanted to generalize, knowing very well that this weakens the work of a free and independent press. 

Likewise, FLIP rejects Martínez's public announcement of his intention to denounce journalist María Jimena Duzán for having mentioned the order he would have given to intercept politicians and peace negotiators. FLIP is aware that in this case the former prosecutor has already judicially harassed Duzán, through various writs for protection of fundamental rights that seek to silence the press and prevent reporting on matters related to his actions, citing the violation of his fundamental rights to honor and goodwill. These writs for the protection of fundamental rights have already been decided in favor of the journalist. 

For FLIP, Martínez's intimidating message to the press reaches a strong level, by referring to the need to use criminal law against journalists. It is worth reiterating that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that “the use of criminal law to sanction expressions on matters of public interest or on public officials, candidates for public or political office, violates in itself Article 13 of the American Convention”. 

On the other hand, these messages against the press have created a permissive atmosphere of aggression, which has resulted in increased risk for journalists. FLIP is aware that those investigating matters related to the proceedings of the former prosecutor have had to seek protective measures.

FLIP expresses its concern about this situation, as a clear intention to silence a matter of public interest is evident, making use of his position and public exposure, despite the duty to endure greater public scrutiny. We also reiterate that the use of criminal law is incompatible with international standards for the protection of freedom of speech.  Judicializing the public debate as a strategy of censorship of the press from a position of power, removes democratic credentials and reduces the flow of information and democratic procedures. 

Finally, FLIP also calls on the National Protection Unit to address journalists' requests, without yielding to pressures that may come from the power position of those involved. These security guarantees are indispensable for the free and independent exercise of the journalistic trade, that contributes to democracy and to citizen control on matters of high public interest. 

 

*“I know that the journalist has all this information, but he selectively has not published it. Why doesn't he disclose it, so then it can be known how the mouse was hovering over the cheese, that is, the money for the demobilized guerrillas?... And then they say that it is the authorities that are against the reinsertion to society of these people.”