Corte IDH - Asunto Comunidades del Jiguamiandó y del Curvaradó vs. Colombia. Medidas Provisionales. Resolución del 22 de mayo de 2013

ORDER OF THE

INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF MAY 22, 2013∗

PROVISIONAL MEASURES WITH REGARD TO THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA

MATTER OF THE COMMUNITES OF THE JIGUAMIANDÓ AND OF THE CURVARADÓ

HAVING SEEN:

1. The Orders of the Inter -American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Court” or “the Court”) of March 6, 2003, November 17, 2004, March 15, 2005, February 7, 2006, February 5, 2008, November 17, 2009, and August 30, 2010. In this last

Order the Court decided, inter alia:

1. To reiterate to the State of Colombia that it must adopt, forthwith, all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the members of the communities constituted by the Community Council of the Jiguamiandó and the families of the Curvaradó, beneficiaries of these measures, pursuant to considering paragraphs 40 to 43 of th[e] Order[;]

2. To reiterate to the State of Colombia that it must establish a permanent monitoring and communication mechanism in the so -called “humanitarian zones,” pursuant to considering paragraph 58 of th[e] Order[, and]

3. To reiterate to the State of Colombia that it must allow the representatives appointed by the beneficiaries of these measures to take part in the planning and implementation of the measures, and that, in general, it keep them informed of any progress in the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights , pursuant to considering paragraph 64 of th[e]

Order. […]

2. Also, the Order of the Inter -American Court of November 25, 2011, in which it

decided, among other matters:

by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights , pursuant to considering paragraph 64 of th[e] Order. […]

2. Also, the Order of the Inter -American Court of November 25, 2011, in which it

decided, among other matters:

1. To take note of the updated information on the number of families […] in the humanitarian zones and biodiversity zones covered by the […] provisional measures , pursuant to considering paragraphs 25 and 26 [of the Order, and]

2. To reject the request for expansion of provisional measures filed by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights in the communication of April 29, 2011, pursuant to considering paragraphs 27 to 29 [of the Order…].

3. The Order of the Court of February 27, 2012, in which it decided, inter alia:

∗ Judge Humberto Sierra Porto, a Colombian national, did not take part in the deliberation of this Order, pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its eighty -fifth regular session, held from November 16 to 28, 2009.2

1. To reject the request submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to reconsider and/or to provide grounds for the Order of November 25, 2011, pursuant to the fourth considering paragraph of [the] Order. […]

4. The briefs of October 11 and December 27, 2010; March 1, April 27, May 18, July 19, August 3, September 5 and 21, November 22 and 23, and December 14, 2011; January 18 and 27, April 9 and 17, May 18 and July 18, 2012, and January 15 and 29, February 5 and March 21, 2013, in which the Republic of Colombia ( hereinafter “the State ” o r “Colombia”) presented information on the implementation of the provisional measures and

and March 21, 2013, in which the Republic of Colombia ( hereinafter “the State ” o r “Colombia”) presented information on the implementation of the provisional measures and referred to additional information forwarded by the representatives and by the InterAmerican Commission (infra having seen paragraphs 5 and 6). Furthermore, in the briefs of August 17, September 21 and November 23, 2012, and January 29, February 5 and March 21, 2013, the State requested that the provisional measures be lifted.

5. The briefs of February 17, April 15, May 8 and July 25, 2011; August 2, 8, 29 and 30, October 10 and 20, November 17 and 29 2011; February 17, May 22 and 30, and June 13, 2012, and February 6 and May 6 2013, in which the representatives presented their observations on the reports of the State (supra having seen paragraph 4), as well as additional information related to presumed incidents involving extreme gravity and urgency.

In addition, the brief of October 16, 2012, in which the representatives presented observations on the information provided by the State that had been requested by the Court in plenary regarding the maintenance of the provisional measures , among other matters (supra having seen paragraph 4 and infra having seen paragraph 7).

6. The brief s o f April 16, July 19 and 22, August 10, November 16 and 23, 2011; January 9 and 13, March 20, June 14 and July 6 2012, and January 2 and 25, February 4 and May 10, 2013, in which the Commission forwarded observations on the reports of the State and presented additi onal information related to the implementation of these provisional measures and to the additional information provided by the representatives

and May 10, 2013, in which the Commission forwarded observations on the reports of the State and presented additi onal information related to the implementation of these provisional measures and to the additional information provided by the representatives (supra having seen paragraphs 4 and 5). Also, the communication of October 17, 2012, in which the Commission forwarded its observations on the information forwarded by the State that had been requested by the Court in plenary (supra having seen paragraph 4 and infra having seen paragraph 7).

7. The note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat ”) of July 4, 2012, in which, on the instruction of the Court in plenary, the State was requested to provide specific information related to these provisional measures in order to assess whether to maintain them. Also, the Secretariat’s note of August 28, 2012, in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court , the Inter -American Commission and the representatives of the beneficiaries were requested to present their observations on the information that the State had been asked to provide.

CONSIDERING THAT:

1. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights

(hereinafter “the American Convention” o r “the Convention ”) since Ju ly 31, 1973, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985.

2. The preamble of the American Convention establishes that:

Recognizing that the essential rights of man are not derived from one's being a national of a certain State, but are based upon attributes of the human personality, and that they therefore justify3

international protection in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.

3. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that:

In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to

international protection in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.

3. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that:

In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.

4. Under international human rights law , provisional measures are not merely preventive, in that they preserve a juridical situation, but rather they are essentially protective, since they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. The measures are applicable provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage are present. In this way, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.1

5. In this matter, on several occasions the State has asked that the provisional measures be lifted . Before the Court can determine whether it is necessary to maintain these measures, it must examine how these measures are being implement ed. As the Court has indicated in other orders issued in this matter ( supra having seen paragraph 1), based on its competence, in the context of provisional measures , the Court may consider only and strictly those arguments that are directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other fact or argument may only be analyzed and decided during the consideration of the merits of a contentious case.2 Consequently, in this matter, it is not incumbent on the Court to take into account information related to presumed acts perpetrated outside the humanitarian zones of Nueva Esperanza, Pueblo Nuevo, Caño Claro and El Tesoro, and the five biodiversity zones known Erasmo Sierra, Enrique Petro, Familia Tuberquia, Ligia María Chaverra and Efrén Romaña, whose members are beneficiaries of these provisional measures, or to acts that prejudice individuals who are

Nuevo, Caño Claro and El Tesoro, and the five biodiversity zones known Erasmo Sierra, Enrique Petro, Familia Tuberquia, Ligia María Chaverra and Efrén Romaña, whose members are beneficiaries of these provisional measures, or to acts that prejudice individuals who are not protected by these measures.3

1 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Castro Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to México. Order of the Inter -American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, fifth considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, and Matter of Castro Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to México. Order of the Inter -American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, sixth considering paragraph. 3 The Court will not take into account the following incidents presented by the representatives: a. On April 3, 2011 , “an attack had been thwarted against the member of the lower council of Caño Manso, Santander Nisperusa,” who had “expressed his concern owing to the existence of a list c ontaining the names of individuals who were to be executed in the hands of paramilitaries. b. In a document attached to the brief of April 15, 2011, they provided information on 46 incidents of alleged threats, intimidation and damage to property that had pre sumably been perpetrated by “occupants in bad faith” and “paramilitaries” between February 12 and April 8, 2011, and were presumably related to the adoption of these provisional measures. According to the representatives of the beneficiaries, “[s]ince the well-known paramilitary operations occurred on April 8, [2011, they were] unaware of no effective operations to protect the life and

provisional measures. According to the representatives of the beneficiaries, “[s]ince the well-known paramilitary operations occurred on April 8, [2011, they were] unaware of no effective operations to protect the life and integrity of the Afro-Colombians […] who inhabit the humanitarian zones and the biodiversity zones in the Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó.” c. On April 15, 2011, the y reported a presumed “occupation of collective lands [by] a group [… of] paramilitaries in civilian clothing bearing rifles.” They also indicated that around this time, “the soldiers […] withdrew from the places on the per imeter of the humanitarian zones and the biodiversity zones where they had established a presence and where those who are claiming Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó lands are located.”4

A. Adoption, forthw ith, of all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the members of the communities constituted by the Community Council of the Jiguamiandó and the families of the Curvaradó beneficiaries of these provisional measures

A.1. Information provided by the State

d. On May 9, 2011, they reported eight incidents of alleged threats, intimidation and the sacking of homes and crops, presumably perpetrated by paramilitaries between April 17 and 25, 2011. e. On August 2, 2011, they reported the “forced disappearance of Everto González, member of the lower council of Caracolí, attached to the [Caracolí] humanitarian zone.” The supposed facts were presumably perpetrated by “paramilitaries on […] July 23, 2011.” The representatives also reported presumed death threats and threats of forced recruitment against the inhabitants of the communities. According to the representatives, “[t]he cases denounced […] made the [forced] displacement necessary of two families […] members of the lower councils of Curvaradó”. f. On August 8, 2011, they reported the forced disappearance of Francisco Pineda, “member of a voluntar y

“[t]he cases denounced […] made the [forced] displacement necessary of two families […] members of the lower councils of Curvaradó”. f. On August 8, 2011, they reported the forced disappearance of Francisco Pineda, “member of a voluntar y council, inhabitant of Caracolí,” who was presumably attacked by paramilitaries on August 1, 2011. According to the information provided by the representatives, “[t]he paramilitaries took him in order to settle a matter relating to land” and, since then, no one knows his whereabouts. They also reported “threats, and plans to execute members of the lower councils” and the presence of paramilitaries in the “Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó river basins,” added to the “failure of the members of the security forces to protect the life and personal integrity of the inhabitants of the humanitarian zones.” g. In documentation attached to the brief of August 8, 2011, they provided information on 19 incidents related to presumed threats, intimidation, paramilita ry presence, occupation of collective territories, and forced displacement that prejudiced inhabitants of the communities of Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó. These acts were perpetrated between July 6 and August 31, 2011. h. On August 29, 2011, they advised that, the previous day , two bodies had been found “in front of the humanitarian zone of Caño Claro Andalucía in Curvaradó.” According to the representatives, the alleged executions had been carried out by presumed paramilitaries. In addition, the representatives indicated that, at that date, “more than 31 of the individuals who were claiming land had received death threats.”

1. On October 10, 2011, they reported the “murder of the indigenous person, Jhon Jairo Domicó, in the collective territory of the Curvaradó.” Ac cording to the representatives, the “member of the Embera indigenous people had been murdered by [presumed] paramilitaries.” They also reported eight incidents of “paramilitary

collective territory of the Curvaradó.” Ac cording to the representatives, the “member of the Embera indigenous people had been murdered by [presumed] paramilitaries.” They also reported eight incidents of “paramilitary presence […,] threats […,] economic blockade [… and] failure to respect humanitarian areas exclusive to the civilian population,” in the Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó river basins. j. On February 17, 2012, they forwarded information on “the persistence of paramilitaries in the basins of the Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó Rivers […, the] threats and accusations against leaders who inhabited the humanitarian zones […, the] continuation of the smear campaigns in the media against Ligia María Chaverra [… and the] persistence of illegal crops in the territory.” k. On May 22, 2012, they provided informati on on the presumed “forced disappearance and murder” of the land restitution leader of the community of Apartadocito, Manuel Ruiz and of his son, Samir de Jesús Ruiz, which had taken place between March 23 and 27, 2012, as well as the forced displacement of his family. l. Also, on October 16, 2012 the representatives indicated that, during the “processing of these [provisional] measures, owing to the order to restitute lands issued by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, death threats had been proffered against […] Pedro Cortés [and] Eliécer Ramos[, …] from the humanitarian zone of Andalucía Caño Claro; Raúl Palacios Salas, Sixta Tulía Pérez, Blanca Rebolledo, Liría Rosa García, Edwin Martínez, and Mario Castaño, from the humanitarian zone of Caracolí; […] Ley dis Tuirán, Noemi Mesa, Nancy Sierra, Santander Nisperusa, Alfonso Saya, Dalida Sánchez, Andrés Lance, Paola Lance, Miguel Mercado, Silvio Mercado, Edgar De

Castaño, from the humanitarian zone of Caracolí; […] Ley dis Tuirán, Noemi Mesa, Nancy Sierra, Santander Nisperusa, Alfonso Saya, Dalida Sánchez, Andrés Lance, Paola Lance, Miguel Mercado, Silvio Mercado, Edgar De Jesús Ricardo and Andrés Medrano[,] from the humanitarian zone of Caño Manso; Nevys Yanes, Luis Durango, […] David Recuero, William Plazas, James Tovar and Franklin Yañez, from the El Tesoro humanitarian zone; […] Eustaquio Polo, […] Miguel Hoyos, José Francisco Rosario and Euclides Trejos, from the Camelias humanitarian zone; Enrique Cabezas from the Lower Council of Apartadocito, Guillermo Diaz from the Argénito Díaz humanitarian zone, Ubert Alvarado from the Jiguamiandó river basin, Marta Martínez from the Lower Council of Caño Manso, and Oliver Blanco, among others.” m. On May 6, 2013, they reported al leged threats to the life and personal integrity of Enrique Cabezas and Guillermo Díaz, leaders from the area, and forwarded the report entitled “Caracterización jurídica y saneamiento de los territorios colectivos de Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó” [Legal status and regularization of the collective territories of Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó ], prepared by the Colombian Rural Development Institute (INCODER) on July 12, 2012, regarding the illegal occupation of the territories of Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó.5

6. The State indicated that the “Afro -Colombian communities [… enjoy] special protection,” and this obliges the State to respect their “autonomy, integrity, dignity and culture,” as established in the Constitution and in ILO Convention 169. In particular, the State emphasized Law 1448 of June 10, 2011, which established “measures of attention, assistance and integral reparation for the victims of the internal armed conflict,” and its

culture,” as established in the Constitution and in ILO Convention 169. In particular, the State emphasized Law 1448 of June 10, 2011, which established “measures of attention, assistance and integral reparation for the victims of the internal armed conflict,” and its Decree-Law 4635 of 2011, which established the “a ssistance, attention, integral reparation, and restitution of lands to the victims belonging to the Black, Afro -Colombian, Raizal and Palenquero communities.” In addition, it reiterated that the Government agencies responsible for guaranteeing security and implementing the measures of protection in favor of the beneficiaries are the 17 th Brigade of the National Army and the Urabá Police Department, which have jurisdiction in the area and provide perimeter security to the communities. It also st ressed the work of the Protection Program headed by the former “Ministry of the Interior and Justice,” and the Risks and Risk Assessment Committee (CRER) that, pursuant to Decree 1740 of 2010 was the entity responsible for recommending the measures of prot ection that it considered pertinent in each case, and their duration. However, following Decree 4912 of 2011, it was the Committee for the Assessment of Risk and Recommendation of Measures (CERREM) of the National Protection Unit, attached to the Ministry of the Interior,4 that was in charge of evaluating and implementing the measures in favor of the beneficiaries . Among other agencies and programs that had been assigned to implement the measures of protection, the State emphasized the Protection Unit creat ed by Decree 4065 of 2011, as well as the Presidential Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Program.

7. Furthermore, the State advised that, in February and October 2011, the former CRER met and formulated individual measures of protection in favor of several beneficiaries of the provisional measures , including: Manuel Denis Blandón, Uriel Tuberquia and Luis Alberto Rentería. In addition, it underlined that other measures of an individual nature had been

met and formulated individual measures of protection in favor of several beneficiaries of the provisional measures , including: Manuel Denis Blandón, Uriel Tuberquia and Luis Alberto Rentería. In addition, it underlined that other measures of an individual nature had been implemented in favor of Ligia María Chaverra, Enrique Petro Hernández, and other beneficiaries from the communities of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó5 who live in the humanitarian and biodiversity zones that are the object of these provisional measures. The State indicated that the measures implemented in favor of the beneficiaries6 include support for transportation, mobile and satellite telephones, nation al airfares, motorcycles, outboard motor boats, bulletproof vests, and a collective protection plan. These measures have been

4 The State indicated that, currently, the entity responsible for the “formulation, adoption, leadership, coordination and execution of public policy, plans, programs and projects in the area of human rights” is the Ministry of the Interior, under the powers granted by Decree 2893 (2011). 5 Luis Manuel Barba, Benjamín Sierra, Efrén Romaña Cuesta, Manuel Esteban Tapias, Adriana María Tuberquia Tuberquia, Franklin Yáñez Licona, Nevis Antonio Yáñez Ortiz, Pedro Cortes Fabra, Sergio Emerito Díaz Gonzalez, Sofanor Enrique Garavito Mercado, Liria Rosa García Giraldo, Luis Ovidio Rentería Robledo, Alfonso Salla Lara, Rafael Enrique Truaquero Tuiran, Argemiro Bailarin Bailarin, Robinson Blandón Córdoba, Emilio Cabezas Correa, Andrés Carmona Luna, Eladio Cordero Hernández, Regulo Córdoba Panneso, Segundo Cuadrado Ávila, Luis

Cuñapa, Javier Antonio Delgado, Jesús María Denis Rentería, Luis Vicencio Díaz, Miguel Díaz Acosta, Guillermo Díaz Tapias, Eduardo Enrique Galván García, Meraldo López, Zenaida Edith Martínez Martínez, Belisario José Marzan Montaño, Gonzalo Mena Murillo, Pedro Negrete Pérez, Hernando Olier Pautt, Overto Osorio Beltrán, Miguel Enrique Páez Petro, Raúl Palacio Salas, Pedro Pablo Palacios Cuesta, Emilson Palacios Moreno, Luis Abraham Peñalosa Mosquera, Jorge Andrés Quinto Córdoba, Eduardo Rentería Mena, Heber Alberto Rentería Mosquera, Hernando Rentería Mosquera, Emir Eliecer Romaña Palomeque, Jaime Romaña Salinas, Luis Julio Sepúlveda, Euclides de Jesús Trejos, Ariel Urango Correa, Dawinson Valoy es Moreno, Germán Marmolejo, Robinson Robledo Córdoba, Adam Quinto, Jaime Beitar, Danilo Murillo Córdoba, Omar Gamel Rentería, Inelsa Baldón, Alberto Vitalino Mosquera Zuñiga, Yasser Hold Mosquera Rentería, Eleume Narciso Ramos Ramos, José de las Mercedes Gonzales Bolaños, Victor Pitalua Urango, Mario Manuel Castaño Bravo, Luis Fernando Murillo Areiza, Fredy Benitez Pestaña, Freddy Manchego Urango, José Miguel Padilla Salgado and Emilio Enrique Cabezas Martínez. 6 According to the State, the National Protection Unit has implemented individual measures in favor of 73 beneficiaries of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó river basins.6

implemented with a differentiated approach, taking into account the geographical location of the area. The State also indicated th at the measures of a collective nature included the provisions of seven outboard motor boats, 70 mobile communication networks, and three satellite telephones.

implemented with a differentiated approach, taking into account the geographical location of the area. The State also indicated th at the measures of a collective nature included the provisions of seven outboard motor boats, 70 mobile communication networks, and three satellite telephones.

8. In addition, Colombia stated that, on February 3, 2011, during the meetings to reach agreement on and monitor the provisional measures , the Ministry of Defense had reiterated that it would retain the presence of the security forces in the territory of the Jiguamiandó and the Curvaradó river basins in order to ensure t he respect for and the protection of the population. Accordingly, as the State had indicated, the Army’s 17 th Brigade and the Río Sucio Task Force are conducting operations in the area in order “to demobilize, capture [… or] neutralize members of illegal armed groups that are seeking to commit crimes in the area,” and to provide security in order to allow the population to return. Furthermore, the State advised that “the movements of Army personnel […] in the area r espond to the Army’s strategy to implement its missions and operations” and, according to the State, did not imply that it had abandoned the community. Moreover, it underlined the increase of troops in the area, from 576 men in 2011 to 756 in 2012, in order to improve and strengthen the situation of security and freedom of movement of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó communities, and the work of the National Police , which , through the Urabá Police Department had implemented preventive and operational measures throughout the jurisdiction.

9. Lastly, the State referred to the decisions adopted by the Constitutional Court of Colombia concerning the situation of the communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curvaradó. It indicated that “[g]iven the situation of extreme vulnerability of the displaced population” in the context of the armed conflict in Colombia, and having verified the grave, systematic, and massive violation of the fundamental rights of this population, the

Curvaradó. It indicated that “[g]iven the situation of extreme vulnerability of the displaced population” in the context of the armed conflict in Colombia, and having verified the grave, systematic, and massive violation of the fundamental rights of this population, the Constitutional Court had declared a state of unconstitutionality 7 concerning the internal forced displacement in amparo judgment T-025 of January 22, 2004, compliance with which had been verified by different monitoring mechanisms. The Court will refer to these decisions below (infra considering paragraphs 49 to 56).

A.2. Observations of the representatives

10. The representatives indicated that the difficulties persist for the “authorities to provide a coordinated response to the dangerous situations faced by the beneficiaries of the provisional measures .” For e xample, in the case of Enrique Petro, they advised that the National Protection Unit had “created numerous [obstacles] to granting the tangible measures requested by the beneficiary,” including an “updated certification of the existence and legal represent ation of the organization” to which the beneficiary belongs. In addition, they indicated that, in May 2012, risk assessments had been conducted of several leaders , but the results have not yet been communicated, and that some measures mentioned by

7 “The factors evaluated by the court to define whether a state of unconstitutionality existed included the following, in particul ar: (i) the massive and generalized violation of various constitutional rights that affects a significant number of persons; ( ii) the prolonger failure of the authorities to comply with their obligation to guarantee the rights; (ii) the adoption of unconstitutional practices, such as the incorporation of the application for amparo as part of the procedure to guarantee the violated right; (iii) the failure to adopt legislative, administrative or budgetary measures to avoid the violation of the rights; (iv) the existence of a social problem the solution of which entails the intervention of several agencies, calls for the adoption of a complex and coordinated series of actions, and requires a level of resources that demands an important additional budgetary eff ort; [and] (v) if all

or budgetary measures to avoid the violation of the rights; (iv) the existence of a social problem the solution of which entails the intervention of several agencies, calls for the adoption of a complex and coordinated series of actions, and requires a level of resources that demands an important additional budgetary eff ort; [and] (v) if all the persons affected by the same problem filed an application for amparo to obtain the protection of their rights, this would increase delays in the courts.” Cf. Judgment T -025 of January 22, 2004, Constitutional Court of Colombia (provisional measures file, tome XVIII, folio 7535).7

the State “have not been implemented effectively,” particularly the provision of outboard motor boat s, the “ intense protection scheme requested by Enrique Petro” and the landbased support. They indicated that most of the persons who the State presented as beneficiaries of the “tangible measures” were not beneficiaries of the provisional measures . Regarding the measure s of a general nature, they indicated that connivance with and tolerance of the illegal armed groups by the civil and military authorities continues. In addition, they considered that the information forwarded by the State merely described general activities undertaken by the security forces, but failed to specify the real impact that they have had as regards protection.

A.3. Observations of the Inter-American Commission

11. The Commission took note of the efforts described by the State to comply with the obligation of protection. However, it noted that no mention was made of the effectiveness and the specific and immediate impact of these measures for the beneficiaries, and that it had not pr ovided information on differentiated measures to respond to the situation of extreme risk. Furthermore, it took note “that the State ‘in good faith’ had approved m