Expulsion d’etrangers et Convention européenne des droits de l’homme Le risque de mauvais traitements dans l’Etat de destinatio

El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos no impugnó nunca el derecho de los Estados de expulsar extranjeros por distintas razones en la medida en que naturalmente un Estado parte del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos sigue ejerciendo su soberanía en su territorio. No obstante, este derecho debe conciliarse con la obligación de los Estados partes del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos de no exponer a los extranjeros y, en general, a las personas dependientes de su jurisdicción a riesgos de violación de las disposiciones del Convenio.Procurar que ningún derecho consagrado por el Convenio se viole con motivo de una expulsión es, sin embargo, una tarea un tanto pesada de asumir, ya que eso podría terminar por invalidar el derecho soberano de los Estados a expulsar de su territorio a extranjeros. El Tribunal de Estrasburgo retiene sobre todo un único riesgo de violación: el del artículo 3º del Convenio, según el cual se prohíben las penas y tratos inhumanos o degradantes y, a fortiori, los actos de tortura. Su jurisprudencia, abundante y rica en matices, en este marco, ha llevado a examinar las condiciones de protección de los derechos humanos en todo Estado hacia el cual un extranjero sea (o haya sido) expulsado

The project of land restitution in Colombia: an illustration of the civilizing force of hypocrisy?

This article offers a theoretical interpretation of the dispositions on land restitution contained in the famous “Victims’ Bill”, which was debated in the Colombian Congress during the year 2008. The bill included specific mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing the restitution of land to victims of the Colombian armed conflict. At the time, the bill was endorsed by all the main political actors in the country –notably the government and the elites that support it, on the one hand, and victims’ and human rights organizations and other opposition groups, on the other–. The fact that the restitution of land to victims of the Colombian armed conflict was being considered as a serious possibility by all political actors in the country seemed to indicate the existence of a consensus among actors whose positions are ordinarily opposed, on an issue that has traditionally led to high levels of polarization. This consensus is quite puzzling, because it seems to be at odds with the interests and/or the conceptions of justice advocated by these political actors, and because the restitution of land faces enormous difficulties both from a factual and a normative point of view, which indicates that it may not necessarily be the best alternative for dealing with the issue of land distribution in Colombia. This article offers an interpretation of said consensus, arguing that it is only an apparent consensus in which the actors are actually misrepresenting their interests and conceptions of justice, while at the same time adopting divergent strategies of implementation aimed at fulfilling their true interests. Nevertheless, the article concludes that the common adherence by all actors to the principle of restorative justice might bring about its actual realization, and thus produce an outcome that, in spite (and perhaps even because) of being unintended, might substantively contribute to solving the problem of unequal land distribution in Colombia. Even though the article focuses in some detail on the specificities of the 2008 Bill, it attempts to make a general argument about the state of the discussion on how to deal with the issue of land distribution in the country. Consequently, it may still be relevant today, especially considering that a new Bill on land restitution is currently being discussed in Congress, which includes the same restitution goals as the Victims’ Bill and many of its procedural and substantive details, and which therefore seems to reflect a similar consensus to the one analyzed in the article.