Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia
Effective Remedy | Judicial Protection | Relatives as Victims | State/Non-State Agents
The Court concluded that when conducting its investigation, the State did not act with due diligence to follow through on logical lines of inquiry. Furthermore, even though it should have known that the relatives of the victims were at risk, the State failed to provide or offer them protection. The Court found that this omission undermined the victims' participation in the investigative proceedings.
November 21, 2018
Article 1(1) [ACHR], Article 3 [ACHR], Article 4 [ACHR], Article 4(1) [ACHR], Article 5 [ACHR], Article 7 [ACHR], Article 8(1) [ACHR], Article 17 [ACHR], Article 19 [ACHR], Article 22(1) [ACHR], Article 25(1) [ACHR], Article 1(b) [IACFDP], Article 1 [IACPPT], Article 6 [IACPPT], Article 8 [IACPPT]
Articles not violated / not dealt with
Article 1(1) [ACHR], Article 5 [ACHR], Article 5(2) [ACHR], Article 11(2) [ACHR]
Facts of the Case
The case refers to the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Noel Emiro Carrascal; the illegal detention, forced disappearance and execution of his son Mr. Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval while searching for his father; as well as the attack and subsequent death of his father-in-law, Mr. Héctor Álvarez Sánchez. These events took place between January and October 1994 in the Department of Cesar, as a consequence of the actions of paramilitary groups and with the collaboration of State agents. As a result of these events, some members of the family were forced to leave their home, including three minors.