Jineth Bedoya is a prominent investigative journalist in Colombia. This case concerns her abduction, torture and sexual assault committed against her in May 2000. The attack took place at the entrance to the infamous Modelo prison in Bogotá to interview a prisoner as part of her journalistic work.

Ms Bedoya brought her case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights because the government failed to adequately prevent the attack and failed to carry out a diligent, impartial and effective investigation to establish what had happened, and how it was allowed to happen, including the responsibility of those involved.

Heightened protection for women journalists

The Court considered that, at the time of the attack, Jineth Bedoya faced a heightened risk because of the intersection of her status as a woman and her work as a journalist.

During the proceedings, evidence was provided that indicated that the threats against Ms Bedoya were real and there was a high probability that she would be the victim of an attack. Further, the Court established that the government failed in assessing and implementing protective measures to address the specific risks she was facing as a woman journalist.

The Court considered that, in this case, the sexual violence perpetrated against Ms Bedoya was aimed at punishing, silencing and intimidating her because of her journalistic activities. Following established precedents, the Court concluded that the abduction and sexual assault amounted to torture. Importantly, the Court found that State agents had directly participated in and facilitated the attack, meaning that the State's responsibility arose not only from its failure to prevent the attack, but also from the direct involvement of State agents in its perpetration.

The effect of violence against women journalists

According to the Court, freedom of expression was violated in two ways in this case: on an individual basis, consistent in Jineth Bedoya's possibility to seek, receive and impart information or ideas, which was hindered by the abduction and torture; and in its social dimension, referring to society's right to receive such information and ideas. Attacks like those perpetrated against Ms Bedoya have the effect of reducing the information received by society and result in a chilling effect among other journalists, in particular women journalists. By silencing or discouraging women from participating in public debate the voices and points of view of women in the public marketplace of ideas are reduced and the lack of gender diversity in journalism results in a decrease in pluralism and undermines the democratic debate.

In terms of reparations, the Court ordered a comprehensive set of measures addressing both the harm suffered by Ms Bedoya and the structural conditions that contributed to the violations. These included measures of satisfaction (publication of the judgment and its official summary, an annual scholarship, and the production and dissemination of the "No es hora de callar" programme), rehabilitation measures, and compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court also ordered a set of guarantees of non-repetition aimed at addressing the structural context of violence against women journalists, including the design and implementation of a comprehensive protection policy for journalists with a gender-sensitive approach, the creation of a public data-collection system on threats and violence against journalists and human rights defenders, the establishment of a fund for the prevention, protection, and assistance of women journalists who are victims of gender-based violence, and the creation of the "Centro Investigativo No es Hora de Callar".

Obligations towards women journalists

The Court recalled that, according to the ACHR, States have an obligation to afford an effective remedy within the judicial system, compliant with rules on due process, to victims of human rights violations. However, this duty is also heightened in the case of violence against women journalists. This is due to the obligations established in the Belém do Pará Convention for preventing and protecting against gender violence. As such, when crimes of this nature take place, investigative authorities are required to identify the specific risks and factors that can cause violence against women journalists on the basis of their gender and their work.

In this case, the State failed to comply with these obligations, particularly due to a series of failures in evidence-gathering by the authorities. In fact, because of these failures, Jineth Bedoya was compelled to collect and store evidence that she thought might prove relevant at a later stage. The Court further found that the investigation had been marred by the use of gender stereotypes and discriminatory treatment on the part of the domestic authorities. Rather than directing their efforts towards identifying and locating the perpetrators, the prosecuting authorities focused instead on scrutinising Ms Bedoya's personal life, and the first prosecutor assigned to the case put questions to her that were revictimising in nature. This revictimisation was compounded by the fact that Ms Bedoya was required to recount the events and give statements to the investigating authorities on twelve separate occasion.

This failure to investigate by itself amounted to discrimination on the basis of gender. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the lack of efficiency in cases of violence against women, alongside an environment of insecurity and distrust in the judiciary, facilitates and promotes impunity.

Impunity in cases against women journalists

The Court concluded that these issues, as well as the violence perpetrated against Jineth Bedoya, are likely to cause a chilling effect on other journalists. The Court, however, added that there is a specific gender element in the case: the lack of justice in attacks against a prominent woman journalist sends a dissuasive message to women journalists in general.