Q&A: 'Civilians Must Not Suffer the Effects of the Armed Conflict' in Colombia

• Constanza Vieira interviews ROMARIC FERRARO of Red Cross Colombia (bogota)
• Friday, September 02, 2011
• Inter Press Service

The start of the protest or 'minga' — a word that means a traditional indigenous meeting or activity for the collective good — is nearing. The demonstrators have begun to gather in Tierrero, a village 20 km from Toribío, the capital of Nasa Indian life, and are working on the logistics.

The legal adviser for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Colombia, Romaric Ferraro, told IPS 'it is clear' that if the civilian population 'tries to take forceful action against the public security forces or against units of armed groups, they will unnecessarily expose themselves to serious risks.'

The Red Cross never speaks publicly about its operational activities on the ground in this South American country, which has been at war for over half a century. But it is known that the humanitarian organisation holds bilateral, confidential dialogue with both the leadership of the armed forces and the left-wing guerrillas.

The Red Cross is neutral and impartial with respect to the legality of the acts committed by the different sides: the priority of its 13 offices in Colombia is to maintain access to the people most affected by the internal armed conflict.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas, which emerged in 1964, used indiscriminate weapons in a Jul. 9 attack on Toribío, arguing that 'many' homes in the town were rented to members of the military. The police station there is a cement fortress built within the town itself.

At the same time, the government threatened to demolish the homes of civilians where guerrillas have allegedly been given shelter.

Ferraro's field of action is international humanitarian law. IPS sat down with the French lawyer, who two years ago was transferred from Mexico to Colombia, to talk about this issue and about the risk of the situation deteriorating in the area over the next few days.

Q: In June, the Colombian government recognised that there is an internal armed conflict. Since then public references to international humanitarian law (IHL) have increased, on the part of both the government and the guerrillas. Is this instrument gaining in strength in Colombia? A: There will always be a distance between the political discourse of the parties involved in an armed conflict and facts on the ground. I see it as positive that the actual situation has been recognised, because the actors are then obliged to justify their actions with respect to IHL, at least at the level of rhetoric.

Q: The Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC) says that all actors in the war consciously violate IHL, under the argument that the other side has already done so. A: We observe on the ground that the civilian population is the first victim of the consequences of this conflict, whether or not the consequences are caused by government or non-government actors. And that is what we are also trying, year after year, to stress in our public reports.

Q: How should the government's announcement about demolishing civilian homes where guerrillas are being sheltered be interpreted? A: The principle of distinction (between civilians and combatants) applies to both people and objects. An object that is not a military objective cannot be attacked.

However, that protection is not absolute. A case-by-case analysis has to be made, if for example the security forces or an organised armed group use civilian objects, but at that moment the object can lose that protection.

During its use for military purposes, an object becomes a military objective. That is why there is just as much responsibility on the part of whoever is using that object.

We try to convince all of the actors involved in the armed violence in Colombia about the consequences of being in certain places. It is not only the people who must be protected.

The simple fact that the groups are in a given place has immediate consequences. Their prolonged presence in an urban area, a school, a health post, also puts that object at risk.

Q: In these cases, they (objects or places) lose their protected status? A: Yes, momentarily, while they are being used for military purposes.

Q: When you go to the Kankuamo indigenous territory in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountains (in northern Colombia), you see a military base built right up against an indigenous school. A: Yes. That is where we have a constant, ongoing dialogue with the public security forces.

That kind of behaviour on the part of the security forces is the violation of IHL that we most frequently document in Colombia, also because it is the most visible.

There is a dilemma that we are very much aware of: 'as a state, we have to provide public services'. The security forces say: 'if we are not present, we cannot provide public security'. It's a question of evaluating, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not we are looking at a violation of the principle of not endangering the civilian population.

It's not a question of telling every member of the security forces: pull out from wherever you are. That would not be realistic. But if a military unit has a constant presence in a densely populated area and there are repeated attacks, well then there are many reasons to tell that unit: it's time to think about the consequences of your presence here.

Q: In these confidential conversations that your organisation holds, do you warn the FARC that attacks with indiscriminate weapons, like the ones used in Toribío, can end up causing an incident like the one that occurred in Bojayá in 2001, when 119 civilians were killed? A: I couldn't give you details about the kind of arguments we use. But yes, we have always used the issue of the humanitarian consequences of actions, as part of our methodology.

Above and beyond saying that this or that behaviour is prohibited under IHL, we prefer to see what the concrete consequences are, for example, of using anti-personnel mines, recruiting minors, forcibly 'disappearing' people, occupying public or private property for lengthy periods of time, or attacking a medical mission.

Q: Indigenous groups are demanding the demilitarisation of their territories, demanding that everyone leave. A: IHL does not specify anything about indigenous people in particular. Nothing in IHL states that only indigenous people must enter indigenous territories. However, it does have a series of equivalent restrictions, in terms of their effects.

What does IHL say? That the civilian population must not suffer the effects of the armed conflict; that civilians and civilian objects are protected.

For international armed conflicts there are a series of concepts outlined in the Geneva Conventions…which could be transposed to the context of an internal conflict, through an agreement.

This involves zones that can be declared as specially protected, peace zones where the parties involved basically agree that they won't use that area for offensive purposes.

Q: In the meantime, article 30 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says: 'Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest'. A: Yes. And also because there is an obligation to ensure public security in the territory as a whole. With respect to this question, I believe that only the Constitutional Court can resolve this kind of conflicting interests.

© Inter Press Service (2011) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Where next?

Advertisement