(FLIP/IFEX) – On 16 September 2002, the seventh judge of the Bogotá Specialised Court stated that he would not be able to rule on the case of journalist Jaime Garzon’s assassination, which occurred on 13 August 1999 in Bogotá. Subsequently, the case will be moved out of the jurisdiction of the specialised court, which tries […]
(FLIP/IFEX) – On 16 September 2002, the seventh judge of the Bogotá Specialised Court stated that he would not be able to rule on the case of journalist Jaime Garzon’s assassination, which occurred on 13 August 1999 in Bogotá. Subsequently, the case will be moved out of the jurisdiction of the specialised court, which tries human rights violations and crimes committed with terrorist aims, and transferred to an ordinary court.
During a public hearing, the specialised court judge stated that the case does not fall under his jurisdiction, “because the assassination did not occur while the victim was carrying out his profession and the motive was not connected to terrorist activity.” According to the Criminal Code, a case should be treated by a specialised court when the homicide is believed to have been committed “with terrorist aims or as part of terrorist activities”, or if the victim “was a public official, journalist, justice of the peace, labour leader, politician or religious leader”.
The Garzon case was brought to trial on 12 March, after the Attorney General’s Office found that there was sufficient evidence to try Carlos Castaño Gil, head of the paramilitary forces in Colombia, for having allegedly masterminded the crime. Juan Pablo Ortiz Agudelo, alias “El Bochas”, and Edilberto Sierra Ayala, alias “Toño”, were alleged to have carried out the assassination.
If the Garzon case is transferred to an ordinary court, this would suggest that the motive for the crime was allegedly not connected with the journalist’s profession. Instead, the assassination will be treated by the courts like any other common crime committed on the streets.
Nevertheless, a number of hypotheses regarding the motive for the murder exist – hypotheses which organisations such as the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) and Reporters sans frontières (RSF) believe the Attorney General’s Office discarded too easily. One hypothesis is that the crime was linked to Garzon’s involvement in negotiations for the release of kidnapped individuals. Alternatively, the murder may have been connected to the journalist’s information on the alleged participation of sectors of the army in arms trafficking and kidnapping rackets with the guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC). The IAPA and RSF feel that this hypothesis, which would link the crime to the journalist’s profession, has not been sufficiently investigated by the Attorney General’s Office.
Attorney Eduardo Mesa told the media that he disagrees with the specialised court judge’s decision. He believes that the investigation carried out by the Attorney General’s Office provides enough evidence for the case to continue being treated by a specialised court.
According to lawyer Alirio Uribe, of the José Alvear Lawyers’ Collective, civil representatives in the Garzon case, the judge’s decision will have two consequences. First, the process will be delayed while a decision is made as to where the case should be transferred next. It is possible, Uribe noted, that the criminal court judge who is assigned the case will also declare that he or she is unable to rule on the case. If this occurs, the Supreme Court will have to decide which type of court should hear the case. “This process could take between nine months and one year,” Uribe stated.
Second, Uribe added, if the case is transferred to an ordinary court, “Jaime Garzon’s assassination would be given a lower profile.” The Garzon case has greatly impacted on Colombian public opinion and has been repeatedly denounced by a number of national and international freedom of expression organisations.
Garzon represented critical humor in Colombia. His television programmes were very well received by a number of different sectors. At the time of his death, he had a morning show on the Radionet station, where he provided daily commentary and analysis of the political situation in Colombia.
On 19 September, FLIP expressed its concern for the possible delay in the process resulting from the specialised court judge’s decision. It is crucial that the courts act promptly to resolve this case, which has become a symbol of freedom of expression violations in Colombia, FLIP noted.
The tardiness of the courts in punishing those who violate freedom of expression has resulted in the majority of crimes against journalists remaining unpunished. According to a FLIP investigation, out of 29 assassinations of journalists carried out between 1995 and 2001 for reasons related to the individuals’ profession, in only one case has the assassin been sentenced. The specialised court judge’s decision will be an obstacle in the process of sentencing those responsible for Garzon’s assassination.
