We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 November 2021
This article discusses the existence of an international obligation for the State of Colombia to guarantee access to abortion services for women and girls who are victims of conflict-related sexual violence in the context of the Colombian armed conflict. By examining international humanitarian law rules from an international human rights law lens, it sets out the interdependence between both frameworks from reproductive health and human rights perspectives. Furthermore, the article provides considerations on the recognition and redress of these violations in the transitional justice scenario in Colombia.
1 Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica, La guerra inscrita en el cuerpo: Informe nacional de violencia sexual en el conflicto armado, Bogotá, 2017.
2 Ibid., p. 502; Campaña Violaciones y Otras Violencias: Saquen mi Cuerpo de la Guerra, Encuesta de prevalencia de violencia sexual en contra de las mujeres en el contexto del conflicto armado Colombiano 2010–2015, Bogotá, 2017.
3 Research on abortion and armed conflict in Colombia has mainly addressed three angles: (1) investigations focused on the relation between the weak presence of the State, the presence of armed actors and the consequent limited access to health services, which includes abortion services (see Médecins Sans Frontières, Acceder a la salud es acceder a la vida: 977 voces, Bogotá, 2010; Médecins Sans Frontières, Aborto no seguro, mujeres en riesgo, Bogotá, 2019); (2) investigations that have documented the barriers that hinder and, in some cases, prevent access to abortion services for women and girls in the country, and can disproportionately impact women and girls from conflict-affected areas (see Nina Chaparro, Annika Dalén, Diana Esther Guzmán and Margarita Martínez Osorio, El ejercicio de la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo en el marco del conflicto armado, Dejusticia, Bogotá, 2015; La Mesa por la Vida y la Salud de las Mujeres, Barreras de acceso a la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo en Colombia, Bogotá, 2017); and (3) emerging research, mainly from civil society organizations, on the forms of reproductive violence that have occurred in the context of the armed conflict in Colombia and their impacts on the victims (see Women's Link Worldwide, Una violencia sin nombre: Violencia reproductiva en el conflicto armado Colombiano, Bogotá, 2020; Center for Reproductive Rights, Una radiografía sobre la violencia reproductiva, Bogotá, 2020).
4 Observatorio de Memoria y Conflicto, “El conflicto armado en cifras: Violencia sexual”, available at: http://micrositios.centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/observatorio/portal-de-datos/el-conflicto-en-cifras/violencia-sexual/ (all internet references were accessed in November 2021).
5 Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica, above note 1, p. 476.
6 Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica, Memoria histórica con víctimas de violencia sexual: Aproximación conceptual y metodológica, Bogotá, 2018, p. 44.
7 Unidad de Víctimas, Atención y reparación para las mujeres víctimas de violencia sexual, 24 May 2020, available at: https://tinyurl.com/8fx4tkx9.
8 Tatiana Sánchez Parra, “The Hollow Shell: Children Born of War and the Realities of the Armed Conflict in Colombia”, International Journal of Transitional Justice, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, p. 46.
9 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment C-355-2006 (Jaime Araujo, Clara Inés Vargas).
10 N. Chaparro et al., above note 3, p. 31.
11 Examples include the eugenics policy during Nazi Germany, under which between 70,000 and 350,000 persons were forcibly sterilized (see Stephen B. Saetz Marian Van Court and Mark W. Henshaw, “Eugenics and the Third Reich”, The Eugenics Bulletin, Winter 1985, available at: www.eugenics.net/papers/3rdreich.html; Dieneke De Vos, “Can the ICC Prosecute Forced Contraception?”, European University Institute Blog, 14 March 2016, available at: https://me.eui.eu/dieneke-de-vos/blog/can-the-icc-prosecute-forced-contraception/), and the practices of forced pregnancies and abortions against Yezidi women and girls in the context of the conflict with the so-called Islamic State (see Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Human Rights Situation in Iraq in the Light of Abuses Committed by the So-Called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and Associated Groups, UN Doc. A/HRC/28/18, 27 March 2015, paras 37, 39, 41.
12 Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica, above note 1; Center for Reproductive Rights, above note 3; Women's Link Worldwide, above note 3; Human Rights Watch, “Aprenderás a no llorar”: Niños combatientes en Colombia, New York, 2003, available at: www.hrw.org/reports/colombia_ninos.pdf; Women's Link Worldwide, “Las mujeres y niñas víctimas de violencia sexual en las filas de grupos armados ilegales deben ser consideradas víctimas del conflicto en Colombia y tienen derecho a la reparación”, press release, 12 December 2019, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yb9mw4fr.
13 ICTY. The Prosecutor v. Karadzic and Mladic, Case Nos IT-95-5-R61, IT-95-18-R61, Review of Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 11 July 1996, para. 64.
14 ICTR, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 2 September 1998, para. 507.
15 Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998, (entered into force 1 July 2002) (Rome Statute), Arts (7)(1)(g), 8(2)(b)(xxii). Per the ICC Elements of Crimes, each permutation of the crime requires that “[t]he perpetrator confined one or more women forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law” (pp. 9, 29). An analysis of whether this is an ideal formulation is beyond the scope of this article.
16 Gray, Rosemary, “The ICC's First ‘Forced Pregnancy’ Case in Historical Perspective”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 15, No. 5, 2017Google Scholar.
17 Boon, Kristen, “Rape and Forced Pregnancy under the ICC Statute: Human Dignity, Autonomy, and Consent”, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2001Google Scholar.
18 Cook, Rebecca, Dickens, Bernard M. and Bliss, Laura E., “International Developments in Abortion Law from 1988 to 1998”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 89, No. 4, 1999, pp. 580–581CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; International Federation for Human Rights, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence: A Glossary from A to Z, Paris, 2020, p. 79.
19 Jan Klebbers, International Law, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018, pp. 24–27; Hugh Thirlway, The Sources of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, p. 2.
20 Samantha Besson, “Theorizing the Sources of International Law”, in Samantha Besson and John Tasioulas (eds), The Philosophy of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, p. 167.
21 Catherine O'Rourke, Women's Rights in Armed Conflict under International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020, p. 6.
22 Ibid., p. 4.
23 Ibid., p. 49.
24 Helen Keller and Geir Ulfstein (eds), UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012, p. 415.
25 The State of Colombia ratified this treaty on 29 October 1969.
26 The State of Colombia ratified this treaty on 29 October 1969.
27 The State of Colombia ratified this treaty on 19 January 1982.
28 The State of Colombia ratified the Optional Protocol on 23 January 2007.
29 The State of Colombia ratified this treaty on 8 December 1987.
30 The State of Colombia ratified this treaty on 28 January 1991.
31 The State of Colombia ratified this treaty on 28 May 1973.
32 The State of Colombia ratified this treaty on 10 March 1996.
33 Dinah Shelton, “Commentary and Conclusions”, in D. Shelton (ed.), Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, p. 451; Helen Keller and Leena Grover, “General Comments of the Human Rights Committee and Their Legitimacy”, in H. Keller and G. Ulfstein (eds), above note 24, p. 129.
34 H. Keller and G. Ulfstein (eds), above note 24, p. 415.
35 H. Keller and L. Grover, above note 33, p. 129.
36 Charlesworth, Hilary, Chinkin, Christine and Wright, Shelley, “Feminist Approaches to International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 85, No. 4, 1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C. O'Rourke, above note 21, p. 145.
37 C. O'Rourke, above note 21, p. 19.
38 Ibid., p. 19; Charlesworth, Hillary, “The Unbearable Lightness of Customary International Law”, American Society of International Law Proceedings, Vol. 92, 1998, p. 44Google Scholar; Hillary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin, An Alien's Review of Women and Armed Conflict, Regnet Working Paper No. 73, 2015.
39 See Colombian Political Constitution of 1991, Arts 9, 44, 93, 94, 214, available at: www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Colombia_2015.pdf?lang=en.
40 Cepeda, Manuel José, “The Internationalization of Constitutional Law: A Note on the Colombian Case”, Verfassung und Recht in Übersee, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2008, p. 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgments C-225-1995 (Alejandro Martínez), C-578-1995 (Eduardo Cifuentes), C-358-1997 (Eduardo Cifuentes), C-191-1998 (Eduardo Cifuentes).
42 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgments C-582-1999 (Alejandro Martínez), C-225-1995; Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes, El bloque de constitutionalidad en Colombia: Un análisis jurisprudencial y un ensayo de sistematización doctrinal, Dejusticia, 12 December 2005, p. 16.
43 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment C-291-2007 (Manuel José Cepeda) (author's translation).
44 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment T-477-1995 (Alejandro Martínez).
45 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment C-010-2000 (Alejandro Martínez).
46 Judgments of the Constitutional Court where the recommendations of the human rights treaty monitoring committees have been used include Judgments T-597-1992 (Ciro Angarita), T-568-1999 (Carlos Gaviria), T-1104-2000 (Vladimiro Naranjo), T-568-2001 (Eduardo Montealegre), T-595-2002 (Manuel José Cepeda), T-512-2003 (Eduardo Monetalegre), T-884-2003 (Jaime Cordoba), T-951-2003 (Álvaro Tafur), T-218-2004 (Eduardo Montealegre), T-221-2004 (Eduardo Montealegre), T-440-2004 (Jaime Córdoba), T-741-2004 (Manuel José Cepeda), T-826-2004 (Rodrigo Uprimny), T-827-2004 (Rodrigo Uprimny), T-851-2004 (Manuel José Cepeda), T-884-2004 (Humberto Sierra), T-907-2004 (Manuel José Cepeda), T-919-04 (Marco Gerardo Monroy), T-1096-2004 (Manuel José Cepeda) and C-507-2004 (Manuel José Cepeda).
47 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgments T-568-1999 (Carlos Gaviria), C-067-2003 (Marco Gerardo Monroy).
48 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment C-1189-2000 (Carlos Gaviria).
49 Lubell, Noam, “Challenges in Applying Human Rights Law to Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 860, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hampson, Françoise J., “The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law from the Perspective of a Human Rights Treaty Body”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 90, No. 871, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Émilie Max, Implementing International Humanitarian Law through Human Rights Mechanisms: Opportunity or Utopia?, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Working Paper Series, 2019; Robert Kolb, “Human Rights and Humanitarian Law”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, March 2013.
50 N. Lubell, above note 49; F. J. Hampson, above note 49; É. Max, above note 49; R. Kolb, above note 49; Droege, Cordula, “Elective Affinities? Human Rights and Humanitarian Law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 90, No. 871, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
51 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, para. 25; ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2014, para. 106; ICJ, Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2015, para. 2016.
52 ICRC, “IHL and Human Rights Law”, 29 October 2010, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-human-rights-law.
53 Sassòli, Marco and Olson, Laura M., “The Relationship between International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law Where It Matters: Admissible Killing and Internment of Fighters in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 90, No. 871, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Françoise J. Hampson and Daragh Murray, “ESIL-International Human Rights Law Symposium: Operationalising the Relationship between the Law of the Armed Conflict and International Human Rights Law”, EJIL: Talk!, 31 February 2016, available at: www.ejiltalk.org/esil-international-human-rights-law-symposium-operationalising-the-relationship-between-the-law-of-armed-conflict-and-international-human-rights-law/.
54 C. Droege, above note 50, p. 502; Andrew Clapham, “The Complex Relationship between the Geneva Conventions and International Human Rights Law”, in Andrew Clapham, Paola Gaeta and Marco Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, p. 729.
55 Marco Sassòli, International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2019; A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 54; Daragh Murrary et al., Practitioners’ Guide to Human Rights Law in Armed Conflict, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016, p. 83.
56 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 28 May 1969 (entered into force 27 January 1980), Art. 31(2)(c); C. Droege, above note 50, p. 521; Jean D'Aspremont and Elodie Tranchez, “The Quest for a Non-Conflictual Coexistence of International Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law: Which Role for the Lex Specialis Principle?”, in Robert Kolb and Gloria Gaggioli (eds), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2013, pp. 235–238; Todeschini, Vito, “The Impact of International Humanitarian Law on the Principle of Systemic Integration”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
57 C. O’ Rourke, above note 21, p. 107; ICRC, Women Facing War: ICRC Study on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Women, Geneva, October 2001, p. 213.
58 C. O’ Rourke, above note 21, pp. 40–41.
59 ICRC, above note 57; ICRC, Addressing the Needs of Women Affected by Armed Conflict: An ICRC Guidance Document, Geneva, 2004.
60 R. Kolb, above note 49.
61 A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 54, p. 28.
62 Ibid., p. 393.
63 Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, “Colombia: Still Engulfed in a Series of Non-International Armed Conflicts Despite the 2016 Peace Agreement”, RULAC, 4 December 2018, available at: www.geneva-academy.ch/news/detail/175-colombia-still-engulfed-in-a-series-of-non-international-armed-conflicts-despite-the-2016-peace-agreement.
64 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgments C-574-1992 (Ciro Angarita), C-088-1993 (Ciro Angarita), C-225-1995.
65 ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the field, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2016 (ICRC Commentary on GC I), para. 521, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCI-commentaryArt3.
66 Ibid., para. 553.
67 Ibid., para. 553.
68 Ibid., para. 560.
69 See also Protocol Additional (II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP II), Art. 2(1), which extends the prohibition against adverse distinction to the application of the Protocol as a whole. With respect to humane treatment “without any adverse distinction” of persons not or no longer taking a direct part in hostilities, see AP II, Art. 4(1).
70 ICRC Commentary on GC I, above note 65, para. 569.
71 AP II, Art. 3.
72 ICRC Commentary on GC I, above note 65, para. 575.
73 Ibid., para. 577.
74 Ibid., para. 578.
75 Ibid., para. 582.
76 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (ICRC Customary Law Study), Rule 93, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1.
77 AP II, Art. (4)(2)(e); Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC IV), Art. 27; Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I), Art. 75(2)(b).
78 The Rome Statute, above note 15, Art. 8(2)(e)(vi), lists sexual slavery, forced pregnancy and enforced sterilization as war crimes.
79 ICRC Commentary on GC I, above note 65, para. 698.
80 Ibid., para. 736.
81 Ibid., para. 737.
82 Ibid., para. 766.
83 The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, 2nd Ordinary Session, 1 July 2003, Art. 14(2)(c), expresses that “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to … protect the reproductive rights of women by authorizing medical abortion in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest, and where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the mother or the foetus”.
84 Christina Zampas and Jaime M. Gher, “Abortion as a Human Right: International and Regional Standards”, Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2008; Center for Reproductive Rights, Ensuring Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights of Women and Girls Affected by Conflict, briefing paper, New York, 2017; Center for Reproductive Rights, Reproductive Rights are Human Rights, New York, 2009.
85 R. Cook, B. M. Dickens and L. E. Bliss, above note 18.
86 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgments C-574–1992 (Ciro Angarita), C-088–1993 (Ciro Angarita).
87 ICPD, Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1, 5–13 September 1994, paras 8, 19.
88 Ibid., para. 106(k).
89 Ibid., para. 135, 142(c).
90 CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 19, “Violence Against Women”, 11th Session, 1992, para. 7(c).
91 Ibid., para. 7(c)(g).
92 Ibid., para. 16.
93 Ibid., para. 22.
94 Ibid., para. 24(m).
95 Radhika Coomaraswamy, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Its Causes and Consequences, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/68/Add.4, 21 January 1999, paras 44, 45.
96 Ibid., paras 19, 20.
97 Ibid., para. 21.
98 Paul Hunt, The Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health: Report of the Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/58, 13 February 2003, para. 50.
99 Paul Hunt, The Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health: Report of the Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. E/CN4./2004/49, 16 February 2004, para. 25.
100 CEDAW Committee, Revised Combined Second and Third Period Reports of States Parties: Colombia, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/COL/2-3 Rev.1, 21 September 1993, para. 49; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations by the Human Rights Committee: Colombia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.76, 5 May 1997, para. 24.
101 CEDAW Committee, Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, UN Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1, 7–25 June 1999, para. 393.
102 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Colombia, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/80/COL, 26 May 2004, para. 13.
103 IACHR, Tercer informe sobre la situación de los derechos humanos. Capítulo XII: Los derechos de la mujer, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, 26 February 1999, para. 49.
104 Human Rights Committee, K. L. v. Perú, UN Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003, 22 November 2005; Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Chad, Doc. UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.107, 24 August 1999, para. 30; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.105, 1 December 2004, para. 53; IACHR, White and Potter v. U.S.A (Baby Boy), Case No. 2141, 1981, paras 25–33.
105 See, for example, CEDAW Committee, L. C. v. Perú, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009, 25 November 2011, para 12(b); CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations: Bahrain, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/BHR/CO/3, 10 March 2014, para. 42(b); Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Ireland, UN Doc. CCPR/C/IRL/CO/4, 19 August 2014, para. 9; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Sierra Leone, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SLE/CO/1, 17 April 2014, para. 14; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Guatemala, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GTM/CO/3, 19 April 2012, para. 20; Committee Against Torture (CAT), Concluding Observations: Paraguay, UN Doc. CAT/C/PRY/CO/4-6, 14 December 2011, para. 22; Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Chile, UN Doc. CRC/C/CHL/CO/3, 23 April 2007, para. 56; Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Costa Rica, UN Doc. CRC/C/CRI/CO/4, 3 August 2011, para. 64(c); Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Dominican Republic, UN Doc. E/C.12/DOM/CO/3, 26 November 2010.
106 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health”, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/22, 2 May 2016, para. 5; CAT, Paraguay, above note 105, para. 22; Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Practices in Adopting a Human Rights-Based Approach to Eliminate Preventable Maternal Mortality and Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/18/27, 8 July 2011, para. 29.
107 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment C-355-2006.
108 The Constitutional Court has continuously stated in its decisions (see Judgments T-636-2007, T-585-2010, T-841-2011, T-627-2012, C-754-2015, T-301-2016, T-697-2016, C-327-2016 and SU-096-2018) that the fundamental right to voluntary termination of pregnancy protects the autonomy and freedom of decision of women who, being in one of the three grounds for decriminalization provided for in ruling C-355, resolve to put an end to the human gestation process. The right to voluntary termination of pregnancy belongs to the category of reproductive rights, and as such, shares the orientation, foundation and mandatory content of those rights. At the same time, as it is a fundamental right, it commits all servants and organs of the State, public and private social security providers, and individuals to respect and fulfil it.
109 CEDAW Committee, “General Recommendation No. 30 on Women in Conflict Prevention, Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations”, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/30, 18 October 2013, para. 51(c).
110 Human Rights Committee, K. L. v. Peru, above note 104; Human Rights Committee, Sierra Leone, above note 105, para. 17; Human Rights Committee, L. M. R. v. Argentina, UN Doc. CCPR/C/101/D/1608/2007, 28 April 2011; CAT, Concluding Observations: Poland, UN Doc. CAT/C/POL/CO/5-6, 23 December 2013, para. 23.
111 CAT, Paraguay, above note 105, para. 22; CAT, Concluding Observations: El Salvador, UN Doc. CAT/C/SLV/CO/2, 9 December 2009, para. 22; CAT, Concluding Observations: Nicaragua, UN Doc. CAT/C/ NIC/CO/1, 10 June 2009, para. 16.
112 IACHR, Artavia Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica (“In Vitro Fertilization”), Judgment, 28 November 2012, para. 264.
113 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment SU-096-2018 (José Fernando Reyes).
114 N. Chaparro et al., above note 3.
115 Ibid., p. 44.
116 Ibid., p. 44.
117 Colombian Constitutional Court, Decision A-009-2015 (Luis Ernesto Vargas).
118 Colombian Constitutional Court, Decisions A-092-2008 (Manuel José Cepeda), A-009-2015.
119 Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgments SU-599-2019 (Cristina Pardo), T-083-2017 (Alejandro Linares), C-588-2019 (José Fernando Reyes), T-211-2019 (Cristina Pardo), T-004-2020 (Diana Fajardo), SU-648-2017 (Cristina Pardo).
120 National Congress of Colombia, Law 1448/2011, 10 June 2011, Art. 3. Victims, for the purposes of this law, are considered to be those persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm as a result of events occurring on or after 1 January 1985, as a consequence of infractions of IHL or grave and manifest violations of IHRL which occurred during the conflict. According to paragraph 2, members of organized illegal armed groups shall not be considered victims, except in cases in which children or adolescents have been demobilized from the organized illegal armed group when they were minors. It must be noted that despite the explicit exclusion to the reparation programme of the Victims Law for members of non-State actors who did not demobilize while being underaged included in paragraph 2, a decision from the Constitutional Court changed this. Through Judgment SU-599-2019, the Court recognized that combatant women who were subject to sexual and reproductive violence within the ranks of armed non-State actors have a right to reparation under Law 1448/2011.
121 Law 1448/2011, above note 120, Art. 181: “For the purposes of the present Title, children and adolescents conceived as a consequence of sexual violation during the internal armed conflict shall also be considered victims.”
122 Women's Link Worldwide, above note 3; Center for Reproductive Rights, above note 3; Cinco Claves, “La Alianza Cinco Claves pide abrir un caso de violencia sexual, reproductiva y otros delitos motivados en la sexualidad de la víctima”, 24 February 2020, available at: www.womenslinkworldwide.org/informate/sala-de-prensa/la-alianza-cinco-claves-pide-abrir-un-caso-de-violencia-sexual-reproductiva-y-otros-delitos-motivados-en-la-sexualidad-de-la-victima.
123 Comisión de la Verdad, “La violencia reproductiva en el conflicto armado: Una verdad pendiente”, 15 December 2020, available at: https://comisiondelaverdad.co/actualidad/noticias/violencia-reproductiva-en-el-conflicto-armado-una-verdad-pendiente; Comisión de la Verdad, “Mi cuerpo dice la verdad”, available at: https://comisiondelaverdad.co/encuentro-por-la-verdad-mi-cuerpo-dice-la-verdad; Comisión de la Verdad, “Espacio de escucha ‘Violencia reproductiva en el conflicto armado Colombiano: Una verdad pendiente’”, 17 September 2020, available at: https://comisiondelaverdad.co/actualidad/historico-eventos/espacio-de-escucha-violencia-reproductiva-en-el-conflicto-armado-colombiano-una-verdad-pendiente.
124 C. Claves, above note 122.
125 National Congress of Colombia, Law 1957/2019, Art. 21(1).
