Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08BOGOTA3006
2008-08-15 16:56:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Bogota
Cable title:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT LIMITS DISCRETIONARY
how-toVZCZCXYZ0000 PP RUEHWEB DE RUEHBO #3006 2281656 ZNY CCCCC ZZH P 151656Z AUG 08 FM AMEMBASSY BOGOTA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4192 INFO RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS PRIORITY 0875 RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ AUG 9607 RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA PRIORITY 6453 RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO PRIORITY 7145 RUEHGL/AMCONSUL GUAYAQUIL PRIORITY 4541 RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L BOGOTA 003006
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/16/2017
TAGS: PHUM PGOV KJUS CO
SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL COURT LIMITS DISCRETIONARY
AUTHORITY TO DISMISS SECURITY FORCES
Classified By: Political Counselor John S. Creamer. Reason: 1.4(b,d)
C O N F I D E N T I A L BOGOTA 003006
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/16/2017
TAGS: PHUM PGOV KJUS CO
SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL COURT LIMITS DISCRETIONARY
AUTHORITY TO DISMISS SECURITY FORCES
Classified By: Political Counselor John S. Creamer. Reason: 1.4(b,d)
1. (U) On August 11, the Constitutional Court announced a
ruling limiting the Ministry of Defense's (MOD) discretional
authority to dismiss police and military personnel without
cause. In its ruling on the case of a career navy infantry
officer fired after nine years of service, the court ordered
the MOD to provide clear reasons for his dismissal. The
officer had provided the court with evidence of positive
evaluations by his commanders, including one month before his
dismissal. The court ruled that the discretional authority
was not meant to be "arbitrary" nor give "unlimited powers"
to the state. The court also ruled that the Ministry must
provide the individual subject to dismissal an opportunity to
present his defense. The ruling also applies to the
Department of Administrative Security (intelligence agency)
and INPEC (prison officials).
2. (C) MOD officials said the ruling will lead to the loss
of a valuable tool used to purge the security forces of
corrupt personnel, human rights abusers, and other criminal
elements without waiting for the results of often lengthy,
inconclusive administrative or criminal investigations. MOD
Human Rights Unit Director Colonel Juan Carlos Gomez told us
the decision has raised "serious concerns" and would
negatively impact efforts to root out corruption and human
rights abuses. He acknowledged that human rights groups claim
the MOD used the discretional authority to head off formal
investigations of wrongdoing, but noted that application of
the authority did not preclude separate criminal or
disciplinary actions. Some military have criticized the MOD
for allegedly applying the authority to punish personal
enemies. Gomez said the MOD will not challenge the court's
decision.
3. (SBU) MOD statistics show that between 2004 and 2006, it
dismissed 150 Army officers and nearly 200 non-commissioned
officers under the discretional authority. In 2004 alone, the
MOD fired 300 professional soldiers. Post's Human Rights
Certification includes information that in 2007, the
commander of the Colombian Armed Forces used his
discretionary authority to remove 282 members of the military
(59 officers and 223 non-commissioned officers). In the
first four months of 2008, the commander used his
discretional authority to remove 55 members of the military
(8 officers and 47 non-commissioned officers). The court
said its ruling will not be retroactive, but the MOD worries
the decision will lead to the reinstatement of corrupt
personnel as well as potentially costly civil suits brought
by dismissed military personnel seeking damages.
BROWNFIELD
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/16/2017
TAGS: PHUM PGOV KJUS CO
SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL COURT LIMITS DISCRETIONARY
AUTHORITY TO DISMISS SECURITY FORCES
Classified By: Political Counselor John S. Creamer. Reason: 1.4(b,d)
1. (U) On August 11, the Constitutional Court announced a
ruling limiting the Ministry of Defense's (MOD) discretional
authority to dismiss police and military personnel without
cause. In its ruling on the case of a career navy infantry
officer fired after nine years of service, the court ordered
the MOD to provide clear reasons for his dismissal. The
officer had provided the court with evidence of positive
evaluations by his commanders, including one month before his
dismissal. The court ruled that the discretional authority
was not meant to be "arbitrary" nor give "unlimited powers"
to the state. The court also ruled that the Ministry must
provide the individual subject to dismissal an opportunity to
present his defense. The ruling also applies to the
Department of Administrative Security (intelligence agency)
and INPEC (prison officials).
2. (C) MOD officials said the ruling will lead to the loss
of a valuable tool used to purge the security forces of
corrupt personnel, human rights abusers, and other criminal
elements without waiting for the results of often lengthy,
inconclusive administrative or criminal investigations. MOD
Human Rights Unit Director Colonel Juan Carlos Gomez told us
the decision has raised "serious concerns" and would
negatively impact efforts to root out corruption and human
rights abuses. He acknowledged that human rights groups claim
the MOD used the discretional authority to head off formal
investigations of wrongdoing, but noted that application of
the authority did not preclude separate criminal or
disciplinary actions. Some military have criticized the MOD
for allegedly applying the authority to punish personal
enemies. Gomez said the MOD will not challenge the court's
decision.
3. (SBU) MOD statistics show that between 2004 and 2006, it
dismissed 150 Army officers and nearly 200 non-commissioned
officers under the discretional authority. In 2004 alone, the
MOD fired 300 professional soldiers. Post's Human Rights
Certification includes information that in 2007, the
commander of the Colombian Armed Forces used his
discretionary authority to remove 282 members of the military
(59 officers and 223 non-commissioned officers). In the
first four months of 2008, the commander used his
discretional authority to remove 55 members of the military
(8 officers and 47 non-commissioned officers). The court
said its ruling will not be retroactive, but the MOD worries
the decision will lead to the reinstatement of corrupt
personnel as well as potentially costly civil suits brought
by dismissed military personnel seeking damages.
BROWNFIELD