Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Luis Gonzálo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo v. Colombia

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Audio / Visual Broadcasting
  • Date of Decision
    September 3, 2012
  • Outcome
    Administrative Measures/ Administrative Sanctions to protect FoE, Reparations made by individual or entity who exercised FoE
  • Case Number
    ser. C No. 248
  • Region & Country
    Colombia, Latin-America and Caribbean
  • Judicial Body
    Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)
  • Type of Law
    International/Regional Human Rights Law
  • Themes
    Violence against Speakers / Impunity
  • Tags
    Children, Public Interest, Videos, Judiciary (protection of) / Contempt of Court

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

There is a Spanish language version of this case available.    View Spanish version

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) held that Colombia violated Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) when military officers assaulted a journalist who was covering an anti-government demonstration. The court wrote that Article 13 encompasses both an individual right to seek and impart information, including its mass dissemination, and a collective social right to receive information provided by others.

Further the court found that the attack was meant to silence the journalist which could have a chilling effect on other journalists. Because the state also failed to protect and investigate the threats and harassment suffered by his family, their rights to humane treatment, protection of their honor and dignity, right to freedom of movement and residence, and right to judicial protection, among others, were violated.


Facts

In 1996, Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo, cameraman for a national news network who was covering a protest against the government, was physically assaulted by military officials in charge of controlling the march, and had to be sent to the hospital. Following that incident, the journalist and his family started receiving death threats and were subject to harassment, including an attemped kidnapping of Vélez Restrepo. Following the first incident, there was an internal military investigation leading to disciplinary measures against the officers, and a criminal military investigation was started, but the file was later misplaced. In regards to the harassment and threats, no proper investigation was conducted and no culprits were charged.

Vélez Restrepo finally brought his case against Colombia before the IACtHR, claiming that the State had violated ACHR Articles 1 (obligation to respect rights), 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 8 (right to fair trial), 13 (right to freedom of thought and expression), 11 (protection of honour and dignity), 17 (rights of the family), 19 (rights of the child), 22 (right to freedom of movement and residence), and 25 (right to judicial protection).


Decision Overview

Regarding the right to freedom of thought and expression, ACHR Article 13, the Court reiterated its understanding that the right has two dimensions, an individual and a social one. The first dimension contains the right to seek and impart information, including its mass dissemination. The social dimension pertains to the collective right of receiving the information provided by others. The Court further expressed that the exercise of the journalistic profession cannot be separated from the right to freedom of expression. The Court understood that, being that Vélez Restrepo was assaulted by military officials whilst conducting his profession, and the purpose of the assault was to preclude him from further recording the events and delivering the contents already obtained, that the assault violated his right to freedom of expression, particularly because the information was of public interest. The Court further believed that the aggression against Vélez Restrepo would have a negative impact on other journalists who would otherwise consider covering similar situations, once again violating the right to freedom of expression and the right to receive information.

The Court also understood that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression requires conditions and social practices that favor it. The lack of protection and of a proper investigation by the government failed to provide the desirable conditions. Because it is the government’s duty to do so, and the government knew of the ongoing threats and harassment at the time, this also constituted a violation by the State of Columbia of Articles 5 (humane treatment) and 13 (freedom of expression) of the ACHR.

The Court further indicated that states have the obligation to adopt special measures of prevention and protection of journalists that are subject to special risks because of their profession. The Court understood that because the state failed to protect and investigate the threats and harassment suffered by the family, they had to seek asylum in the U.S. These failures by the state violated the family’s right to freedom of movement and residence under ACHR Article 22. This resulted in the separation of the family for a significant period of time and the material affective and psychological impact on the children’s lives, a violation of the rights of the family and the child. ACHR Articles 17, 19. Only conducting a trial by a military tribunal on human rights violations constituted a violation of the right to a fair trial. ACHR Article 8. The lack of a proper investigation on the occurrences amounted to a violation by the state of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection. ACHR Articles 8, 25. Lastly, because there had not been a serious threat to Vélez Restrepo and his family’s lives, no violation of ACHR Article 4 had occurred.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The case stands for journalists’ freedom to express themselves without retribution from the government for that speech.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

  • UNHRC, Eduardo Bleier v. Uruguay, UN Doc. No. CCPR/C/15/D/30/1978 (03/29/1982)
  • UNHRC, Héctor Alfredo Romero v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 85/1981
  • Concluding observations on Colombia, UN Doc. No. CCPR/C/79/ADD.76 (05/05/1997)
  • IACtHR, Kimel v. Argentina, ser. C No. 177 (2008)
  • IACtHR, Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, ser. C No. 245 (2012)
  • IACtHR, Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, ser. C No. 213 (2010)
  • IACtHR, Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, ser. C No. 192 (2008)
  • IACtHR, Escué Zapata v. Colombia, ser. C No. 165 (2006)
  • IACtHR, Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, ser. C No. 163 (2007)
  • IACtHR, Masacres de Ituango v. Colombia, ser. C No. 148 (2006)
  • IACtHR, Caracazo v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 58 (1999)
  • IACtHR, Contreras v. El Salvador, ser. C No. 232 (2011)
  • IACtHR, Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala; Fondo, ser. C No. 190 (2008)
  • IACtHR, Las Palmeras v. Colombia, ser. C No. 67 (2000)
  • IACtHR, González Medina v. República Dominicana, ser. C No. 240 (2012)
  • IACtHR, Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, ser. C No. 184 (2008)
  • IACtHR, Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 244 (2012)
  • IACtHR, Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras, ser. C No. 6 (1989)
  • IACtHR, Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru, ser. C No. 160 (2006)
  • IACtHR, Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, ser. C No. 180 (2008)
  • IACtHR, López Mendoza v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 233 (2011)
  • IACtHR, Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia, ser. C No. 93 (2002)
  • IACtHR, Gomes Lund v. Brazil, ser. C No. 219 (2010)
  • IACtHR, Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, ser. C No. 98 (2003)
  • IACtHR, The Mapiripán Massacre, ser. C No. 134 (2005)
  • IACtHR, Cabrera García y Montiel Flores v. Mexico, ser. C No. 220 (2010)
  • IACtHR, Barbani Duarte v. Uruguay, ser. C No. 234 (2011)
  • IACtHR, The “Panel Blanca” v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 37 (1998)
  • IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, ser. C No. 4 (1988)
  • IACtHR, Ríos v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 194 (2009)
  • IACtHR, Perozo v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 195 (2009)
  • IACtHR, Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, ser. C No. 33 (1997)
  • IACtHR, Fornerón e Hija v. Argentina, ser. C No. 242 (2012)
  • IACtHR, Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 197 (2009)
  • IACtHR, Familia Barrios v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 237 (2011)
  • IACtHR, Godínez Cruz v. Honduras, ser. C No. 5 (1989)
  • IACtHR, Fontevecchia y D’Amico v. Argentina, ser. C No. 238 (2011)
  • IACtHR, The Last Temptation of Christ, ser. C No. 73 (2001)
  • IACtHR, Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, ser. C No. 107 (2004)
  • IACtHR, Bronstein v. Peru, ser. C No. 74 (2001)
  • IACtHR, Zambrano Vélez v. Ecuador, ser. C No. 166 (2007)
  • IACtHR, Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, ser. C No. 149 (2006)
  • IACtHR, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 63 (1999)
  • IACtHR, The Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, ser. C No. 140 (2006)
  • IACtHR, Vélez Loor v. Panama, ser. C No. 218 (2010)
  • IACtHR, Nogueira de Carvalho v. Brazil, ser. C No. 161 (2006)
  • IACtHR, Escher v. Brazil, ser. C No. 200 (2009)
  • IACtHR, Fleury v. Haiti, ser. C No. 236 (2011)
  • IACtHR, Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, ser. C No. 111 (2004)
  • IACtHR, The Moiwana Community v. Surinam, ser. C No. 124 (2005)
  • IACtHR, Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 211 (2009)
  • IACtHR, Servellón García v. Honduras, ser. C No. 152 (2006)
  • IACtHR, Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay, ser. C No. 112 (2004)
  • IACtHR, Fernández Ortega v. Mexico, ser. C No. 215 (2010)
  • IACtHR, Garibaldi v. Brazil, ser. C No. 203 (2009)
  • IACtHR, Durand y Ugarte v. Peru, ser. C No. 68 (2000)
  • IACtHR, Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, ser. C No. 69 (2000)
  • IACtHR, Las Palmeras v. Colombia, ser. C No. 90 (2001)
  • IACtHR, The 19 Comerciantes v. Colombia, ser. C No. 109 (2004)
  • IACtHR, Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, ser. C No. 119 (2004)
  • IACtHR, Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, ser. C No. 135 (2005)
  • IACtHR, Montero Aranguren v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 150 (2006)
  • IACtHR, La Cantuta v. Peru, ser. C No. 162 (2006)
  • IACtHR, Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 207 (2009)
  • IACtHR, Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, ser. C No. 209 (2009)
  • IACtHR, Castillo Petruzzi v. Peru, ser. C No. 52 (1999)
  • IACtHR, Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, ser. C No. 30 (1997)
  • IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, ser. C No. 4 (1988)
  • IACtHR, Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, ser. C No. 245 (2012)
  • IACtHR, Garrido y Baigorria v. Argentina, ser. C No. 39 (1998)
  • IACtHR, Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, ser. C No. 88 (2001)
  • IACtHR, Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, ser. C No. 191 (2008)
  • IACtHR, The “Niños de la Calle” v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 77 (2001)
  • IACtHR, Neira Alegría v. Peru, ser. C No. 29 (1996)
  • IACtHR, Chitay Nech v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 212 (2010)
  • IACtHR, Pacheco Teruel v. Honduras, ser. C No. 241 (2012)
  • IACtHR, Vera Vera v. Ecuador, ser. C No. 226 (2011)
  • IACtHR, Albán Cornejo v. Ecuador, ser. C No. 171 (2007)
  • IACtHR, Barrios Altos v. Peru, ser. C No. 75 (2001)
  • IACtHR, Barrios Altos v. Peru, ser. C No. 83 (2001)
  • IACtHR, Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia, ser. C No. 92 (2002)
  • IACtHR, Caracazo v. Venezuela, ser. C No. 95 (2002)
  • IACtHR, Bulacio v. Argentina, ser. C No. 100 (2003)
  • IACtHR, Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 101 (2003)
  • IACtHR, Molina Theissen v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 108 (2004)
  • IACtHR, The Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, ser. C No. 110 (2004)
  • IACtHR, Tibi v. Ecuador, ser. C No. 114 (2004)
  • IACtHR, The Masacre Plan de Sánchez v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 116 (2004)
  • IACtHR, Carpio Nicolle v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 117 (2004)
  • IACtHR, De las Hermanas Serrano Cruz v. El Salvador, ser. C No. 120 (2005)
  • IACtHR, Gelman v. Uruguay, ser. C No. 221 (2011)
  • IACtHR, Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 91 (2002)
  • IACtHR, Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, ser. C No. 91 (2002)
  • IACtHR, Chaparro Álvarez y Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, ser. C No. 170 (2007)
  • IACtHR, The Word "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, ser. A No. 6 (1986)
  • IACtHR, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, ser. A No. 5 (1985)
  • IACtHR, Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, ser. A No. 18 (2003)
  • IACtHR, Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, ser. A No. 17 (2002)
  • IACmHR, The Inter-American Legal Framework regarding the Right to Freedom of Expression, CIDH/RELE/INF.2/09 (12/30/2009)
  • IACmHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.84 Doc. 39 rev. (10/14/1993)
  • IACmHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.84 Doc. 39 rev. (10/14/1993)
  • ECtHR, Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey, App. No. 23927/94 (1999)
  • ECtHR, Feldek v. Slovakia, App. No. 29032/95 (2001)
  • ECtHR, Makaratzis v. Greece, App. No. 50385/99 (2004)
  • ECtHR, Ismail Altun v. Turkey, App. No. 22932/02 (2004)
  • ECtHR, Olsson v. Sweden (No. 1), No. 10465/83 (1988)
  • ECtHR, Johansen v. Norway, App. No. 24/1995/530/616 (1996)
  • ECtHR, K and T v. Finland, No. 25702/94 (2001)
  • ACHR, art. 1
  • ACHR, art. 4
  • ACHR, art. 5
  • ACHR, art. 8
  • ACHR, art. 13
  • ACHR, art. 11
  • ACHR, art. 17
  • ACHR, art. 19
  • ACHR. art. 25
  • ACHR, art. 22

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

The decision is issued by the IACtHR, whose judgments Colombia is obliged to respect.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Amicus Briefs and Other Legal Authorities

  • Grupo de Acciones Públicas de la Facultad de Jurisprudencia de la Universidad del Rosario

  • Clínica Jurídica por la Justicia Social y el Máster de “Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Justicia Internacional” de la Universitat de València

  • Luis Gonzálo ‘Richard’ Vélez Restrepo v. Colombia: Written Comments of Article 19, Global Campaign for Freedom Expression

    Not accepted by the court.


    http://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/3084/Article-19-Amicus-Velez-Restrepo.pdf

  • Have comments?

    Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

    Send Feedback