In Conversation With Sebastián Escobar Uribe
His work as a human rights lawyer with CCAJAR in Colombia towards justice for victims of the armed conflict
Interviewed by Yadira Sánchez-Esparza
Sebastián Escobar Uribe is a lawyer working with the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers’ Collective (CCAJAR) in Colombia, who has supported the documentation of crimes committed by members of police and armed forces, which involved arbitrary detention and extrajudicial execution of civilians who were reported as members of illicit groups killed as a result of armed confrontation.
The so-called “false positives” which have been qualified by judicial operators as crimes against humanity. In addition to submitting reports, Sebastián Escobar has also intervened in front of the International Criminal Court following the preliminary examination of the Colombian case by the Prosecutor whose assessment focuses, among others, on the above mentioned crimes.
1. Can you start by introducing yourself, your work, and why you’re here today?
My name is Sebastián Escobar and I am a lawyer and a member of a Colombian human rights organisation called the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers' Collective (CCAJAR). It is an organisation that has worked on the defence of human rights in Colombia for the past 45 years - we work in the defence of territory and the fight against the climate crisis, in peace building and also in the fight against impunity for victims of political violence.
What brings me to the United Kingdom is an initiative that several organisations, including CCAJAR, have taken, in which we went to an Argentinean court under Universal Jurisdiction so that the civilian victims of serious crimes of extrajudicial executions, who were illegitimately presented as combat casualties by the Colombian army, could seek justice to denounce the former Colombian President, Álvaro Uribe Vélez. During his 2 terms as president, he implemented a security policy that was quite aggressive and which ended up significantly affecting the civilian population. It was within the framework of this policy, and the positive and negative incentives that this policy incorporated, that the phenomenon of extrajudicial executions was magnified to the point that it resulted in more than 6,400 victims.
Through our representation of victims, our three organisations have been able to document and investigate hundreds of violations. We have found elements that allow us to conclude, on the one hand, that in Colombia there was a pattern of these crimes that were framed in at least 2 forms. One form includes the Colombian army assassinated peasants and farmers in sectors that were territorially controlled by the armed insurgencies under the counter-insurgent doctrine. In the framework of this policy, the Colombian army and the Colombian government gained public recognition for its effectiveness, despite the fact that it was supporting the murder of civilians. The first form changed in the sense that they were no longer assassinating people from the territory, but rather a second form consisted of transporting people from cities with scarce economic resources, in some cases with drug problems or who were living on the streets, and taking them to the place where the insurgents were operating. Those people were subsequently assassinated dressed in clothes that would identify them as members of the armed groups and were therefore presented as casualties in combat.
We also found information, that from a very early stage of the implementation of the public policy, more or less between 2003-2004, the national government and particularly the President was already aware of these serious crimes due to the denunciations by civil society organisations such as CCAJAR, though they were dismissed by the government. Instead of carrying out in-depth investigations, the government accused the denouncing organisations of waging legal warfare against the guerrillas, affecting the effectiveness of its policy against the insurgencies and accused them of being “useful idiots of terrorism” at a time when the counter-terrorist discourse was predominant in the world. In this sense, the policy not only continued, but also continued to encourage the presentation of consistent results in terms of casualties and combat.
Therefore, we have come here to share with Parliamentarians, civil society organisations, the legal community and the FCDO, so that they can provide support so that the demands for justice are heard, whether in Colombia or, in this case, in Argentina. We also seek conditions whereby the lawyers and victims who participated in this complaint, but also in many other actions in the defence of human rights, have guarantees that our work will be recognised. This supports the legitimacy of our work and can also send a message to the Colombian government to safeguard our work.
2. Not long after your last visit to the UK in 2022, Colombia elected Gustavo Petro as president, often referred to as the first left-wing president in Colombia's recent history. Has this brought any changes to human rights defenders and lawyers in Colombia, or what impact has this had on your work?
On the one hand, it is important to recognise that Gustavo Petro’s government has shown a sensitivity to human rights issues, but also, in many cases, it identifies with the demands that the human rights movement has had for many years. This is particularly evident when it comes to social demands for policies, equality, guaranteeing the inclusion of different groups traditionally excluded because of their ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, or gender.
The government has also identified with the proposals for strengthening the mechanisms of dialogue in the search for a solution to the conflicts and particularly to the armed conflicts that still persist in Colombia and to accelerate the implementation of the existing agreements.
Many long-standing members of the human rights movement have found a place in the executive branch of government during this period. The national government now has the role of trying to move forward with many of the policies that we have demanded for years, and this has meant, if not a weakening, then at least a considerable change in the voices that are traditionally represented in decision-making spaces. Having said that, of course it is not something that can be seen to be attributed to the wider national government. There are also other aspects in which the government of Gustavo Petro has changed in comparison to other governments.
I think that a significant aspect is that in past years, particularly with the previous government, the human rights movement felt that many opportunities for dialogue that previously existed had been blocked or hindered, for example, opportunities to discuss issues of guarantees for human rights defenders or roundtables with civil society where relevant issues were discussed. With the new government, many of these roundtables have been reactivated and other new roundtables have been opened, for example on police reform, on the use of force by the national police, on the protection of human rights and guarantees for the defence of human rights, among others. We are in an almost opposite scenario where we have several deliberation and dialogue spaces with the government to the point that sometimes we don't even manage to engage in them all, but that shows the receptiveness of the government.
We believe that it is a positive government in this sense because there is an openness to listen to civil society, and we believe that there is an alignment on issues. However, we also believe that despite having very interesting initiatives and proposals from the point of view of peace and human rights, it still has a great challenge in terms of implementation, of ensuring that these ideas and these commitments are translated into tangible change and concrete policies.
3. Your colleague, Reinaldo Villalba Vargas, visited us last year and highlighted the case CCAJAR is working on regarding the Universal Jurisdiction complaint lodged against former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe Vélez in Argentina. Can you tell us more about the latest developments in the case?
It is a lawsuit or complaint that was presented in November 2023 before the Argentinian courts, and is now being handled by the second federal court of Buenos Aires with Sebastián Ramos as the presiding judge and a prosecutor has been appointed to support the investigation of the process. From that moment on, the prosecutor's office presented what is known in Argentinian procedure as a kind of preliminary investigation request, which means that the Argentinian prosecutor, after evaluating the complaint and having analysed the facts, considers that these are crimes against humanity that would enable the operation of Universal Jurisdiction and has asked the court to admit the complaint or the complaint.
After this, the court made a declaration, opening the case, recognising the victims as legitimate plaintiffs, and the lawyers and human rights organisations were also granted the status of plaintiffs with full powers in the Argentinian process, which enables us to request evidence such as testimony or expert witnesses or any other element that may be useful in establishing the facts and the responsibility of the former President for committing them. We presented more than 400 annexes that would also serve as documentary and evidentiary elements that support the assertions that we put forward in the complaint, and these are under analysis by the court. We are in a phase that we could define as the procedural phase of Universal Jurisdiction, where the analysis of the Argentinian justice system will focus on determining whether the conditions are met to activate the complementary use of Universal Jurisdiction, in line with the principles of international law.
What our organisations have argued is that approximately 20 years have passed since these events occurred and that there have been no investigations for the prosecution of Presidents or former Presidents in Colombia, and that the transitional justice process that was created with the peace agreement is limited in its ability to make progress in investigations against people who no longer hold office.
For us, this situation is sufficient to activate Universal Jurisdiction, but obviously the court has to corroborate this through the relevant channels, that is, by requesting information from the Colombian Foreign Ministry, so that it can send information to the Argentinian court on how it operates. They are also requesting information from other state institutions to assess the competence to investigate former Presidents. We also know that the court is requesting information from the International Criminal Court, given that the Colombian situation was under preliminary examination for a period of time, though it was closed upon the creation of the transitional justice process and the peace agreement in Colombia. We are waiting for this information to be gathered and for the court to take the decision to continue with the investigations.
I am here in the United Kingdom to ask for support for the lawsuit, a strategy that is nourished by a public campaign that aims to get citizens interested in access to justice around the world to support this cause. To that end, they can sign the petition and follow our campaign through our social networks, and on our website. We are also seeking endorsements from civil society and key actors at the international level who are in a position to submit letters of support. It has been a very important visit, in which we have achieved commitments with different actors to strengthen this campaign, the cause for justice, and for the 6,400 victims of extrajudicial executions in our country.
4. What are some of the other main focuses or challenges currently for your work with CCAJAR?
Currently I work as coordinator of a collective working on the fight against impunity. Through this collective, we represent victims of political violence and armed conflict, in the framework of the peace agreement under the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP). We represent several victims of the macro cases, especially those related to criminality exercised by state actors and civil actors who supported paramilitarism during this period of our history.
More recently, we have worked on some cases related to police violence in the context of social protest. In recent years, Colombia has gone through different social crises that have generated massive participation in protests to demand repect for rights and the exercise of the right to protest peacefully. However, the public forces have intervened in many cases in a violent manner to dissuade the participation of communities and citizens in these protests to demand their rights.
In some cases people have been killed, and in other cases they have lost some of their organs—this is quite common in Latin America, particularly attacks on the eyes, causing the loss of sight for many people. We have supported a number of cases in which we have represented victims of police violence and we have also represented protestors facing criminal charges who, in a supremely arbitrary exercise of criminal law, have been charged with terrorism, conspiracy or conspiracy to commit a crime, and many other charges. Such accusations can result in sentences that could amount to 30-40 years in prison for simply having taken to the streets to protest.
One of the many challenges faced by CCAJAR, is the implementation of the peace agreement and the monitoring and important follow-up of the implementation of the total peace policy that seeks to negotiate with different armed actors. This not only includes those that have traditionally existed in our country, such as the main guerrillas, but also with other groups that have been formed after many of the peace agreements, such as some dissidents or some groups that recycle the violence of other armed actors in the past.
Of course, there are also many challenges here, as well as access to justice for the victims of these groups, who can count on accountability mechanisms that remain in the midst of the search for peace, which is always a challenge but at the same time a necessary precondition for achieving a truly lasting and long-term peace. Colombia is still the most dangerous country in the world for human rights defenders, including those defending civil rights, but also environmental and social rights, and we have indicators and figures of violence that are particularly complex. It is therefore a very risky activity, and that is also why there is a need for solid and consistent support from the international community.
5. You have faced intimidation for your work in the defence and promotion of human rights, including death threats in the past. How do you cope with such threats, and what motivates you to continue your work?
Yes indeed, in the past, both personally and other colleagues have faced threats because of our professional practice and our work in the defence of human rights. I actually come from a family of human rights defenders, so I have had to deal with these situations of risk from a very early age.
My mother, as a human rights defender, was also exposed to many of these threats: to surveillance, to the interception of communications, among many of the threats that human rights defenders traditionally face. This meant that from a very early age, I had to develop strategies that allowed me to have a relatively stable and normal life, and I say relatively normal because it is not at all normal for a child from an early age to have to deal with situations of this nature. However, with a more modern perspective and looking back, this has allowed me to have a strong character and I have developed a certain capacity to resolve these types of situations of risk and threat.
More recently, and as part of my work, I have been profiled by the Colombian army through digital tracking mechanisms and other characteristics, and also had death threats against me, as well as against the victims I accompany in some judicial processes in our country. However, as an organisation we have developed capacities to surround ourselves with solidarity organisations that, like PBI, have always been on our side and have accompanied us in these moments to support our work. We also ask for support from other governments of the international community and key actors to guarantee the legitimacy of our work and to be able to continue doing the work that we do.
Of course, in this great solidarity, one also finds an additional motivation for our work, because fortunately, I believe that CCAJAR in these 45 years of history has important achievements, not only at the individual level of the cases that we accompany, where we have obtained favourable decisions for the victims that we represent. It also has important achievements in impacting public policies in Colombia in terms of justice and victims, thereby strengthening our rule of law and our still incipient democracy, but we are convinced that this work is worthwhile and that it is also an effort that must be made. I believe that this is the best incentive for our work.
6. PBI has been supporting CCAJAR since 1995. What does that international protective accompaniment mean to you, and what role can the international community, including the UK, play in supporting your work and that of other human rights defenders in Colombia?
PBI has been present at very important moments when the situation of risk has been quite serious in Colombia. I say this not only because of my time at CAJAR, but also because of PBI's great and relatively recent history in Colombia. PBI has supported many organisations in which, without its physical protective accompaniment, these organisations would not have been able to carry out their work. I have witnessed this since a young age, when PBI accompanied the Corporación Jurídica Libertad, which was an organisation that was founded by my mother. I know how valuable that support from PBI was, particularly in the different regions where this organisation carried out its work, but also for security. Even PBI’s presence in the same city where defenders live is extremely important and significant, because the context was really quite difficult, with many threats, where defenders were being murdered almost permanently, or forcibly disappeared by paramilitary groups with the connivance of state actors.
I dare say that without the physical presence of PBI volunteers, the work and defence of human rights in Colombia would not have been possible at the level it is today, or it would have produced many more human rights defender victims.
I think PBI’s support was fundamental in saving the lives of many of my colleagues in CCAJAR, such as, for example, the lawyer Ali Uribe Muñoz or Reinaldo Villalba Vargas in contexts where they had to move and were victims of surveillance by the intelligence of the permanent state, as was recently recognised in a sentence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Also something of great value of PBI's work is that, it is not only about accompanying hand in hand, but also the immense solidarity of its volunteers, as well as the support in international advocacy, in seeking and guaranteeing permanent support for the work of defending human rights, which as well as being necessary and important, has also been a valuable incentive for our work. Knowing that we have a lot of people who have decided to leave their daily lives to go to a country like Colombia to accompany human rights defenders has been an immense expression of solidarity and generosity, which we value very much.
If our conversation with Sebastián inspired you to take action, here are some easy ways that you can help:
You can help us continue to support Sebastián and other human rights defenders by donating to PBI UK today.
Sign and share the petition by Colombian civil society calling for the former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez to be brought to trial in connection with the “false positives”.
You can also sign up for our quarterly newsletter to learn about additional opportunities to support threatened human rights defenders in Colombia and globally.