The Consejo de Estado left without effect a sentence that had denied the inclusion of the family members of journalist Jorge Enrique Pulido Sierra in the Registro Único de Víctimas (RUV), considering that a relationship between his homicide and the internal armed conflict was not accredited.
Pulido was a victim of an explosive attack on May 16, 1989, and a subsequent firearm attack on October 29 of the same year, which resulted in his death on November 8, 1989. The ordinary justice system convicted one of the perpetrators as the author of the homicide with terrorist purposes.
His family members also stated that the threats and violent acts related to the assassination forced them to leave the country, and they requested that this situation be recognized as forced displacement. The Unidad Administrativa Especial para la Atención y Reparación Integral a las Víctimas (Uariv) denied the inclusion in the RUV, considering that a sufficient relationship between the homicide and the internal armed conflict was not accredited.
Read Also: How to reclaim frozen funds from a blocked financial account
The Juzgado Segundo Administrativo de Bogotá and the Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca maintained this decision. Although the Tribunal recognized that the assassination was committed by the Cartel de Medellín as part of a systematic campaign of terror, it concluded that it obeyed the criminal strategy of that organization and not the development of the internal armed conflict.
The Consejo de Estado indicated that the Tribunal disregarded the rules established by the Corte Constitucional to determine when a fact can be considered to have occurred due to the internal armed conflict. The Sala recalled that it is not necessary to demonstrate a direct relationship between the victimizing fact and a military confrontation, but rather a close and sufficient relationship with the development of the conflict, under a broad interpretation of the concept.
The Consejo de Estado ordered the Tribunal to issue a new decision within 20 days of notification of the providence, after finding a substantive defect and disregard for constitutional precedent.
