The International Office for Human Rights Action on Colombia

Day: 12 March 2025

Statement in response to the recent statements of President Gustavo Petro stigmatising social organisations in Colombia.

by

Brussels 12 March 2025

The International Office for Human Rights – Action Colombia (Oidhaco)[1] rejects any kind of stigmatisation against social organisations and human rights defenders and we call on the European Union, its member states, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Norway to publicly express their support for the people and organisations that defend human rights and build peace in Colombia.

We support the call of Colombian human rights and peace platforms and organisations, who demand a rectification by President Gustavo Petro, regarding the stigmatising statements he made during the televised Council of Ministers on 3 March, focused on the humanitarian crisis in Catatumbo. In this context, the president made serious statements linking social organisations in the region with illegal armed actors. We recall that these are organisations that, as evidenced by the Colombian Ombudsman’s Office itself, have been contributing to the defence of human rights and peace-building for decades, “in a context of a lack of comprehensive and effective protection by the state“, and having suffered serious violations of their fundamental rights and freedoms. Today they demand that the president retract his statements as they exacerbate the stigmatisation of organisations that are already victims of state neglect, suppress guarantees for their political participation and deepen their risk status vis-à-vis illegal actors.

As is well known, Catatumbo is one of the areas of Colombia historically most affected by the impacts of the armed conflict. It is currently experiencing one of the most serious humanitarian crises due to the intensification of violence caused by the clashes between the National Liberation Army (ELN) and FARC dissidents: in just a few weeks, more than 50,000 people have been displaced and more than 70 people have been killed, including six signatories of the Peace Agreement.

Furthermore, as evidenced by the recent annual report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, despite some progress, the situation of human rights defenders in the country continues to be critical, with murders, threats, surveillance and stigmatisation persisting. In this regard, we recall that the Presidency of the Republic of Colombia itself, through Presidential Directive 07/2023, emphasises “the importance of recognising the work of these people (human rights defenders) and combating any form of stigmatisation they may have experienced. The executive is committed to contributing to the investigation and punishment of all forms of violence against those who defend human rights in the country“.

For all the above reasons, we request:

  • The European Union, its member states, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Norway to publicly express their support for human rights defenders and peace-building organisations in Colombia.
  • The Government of Colombia to:
    • immediately retract the serious accusations made against social organisations in Catatumbo,
    • move forward as quickly as possible with the approval of a public policy of comprehensive guarantees for human rights defenders,
    • fully implement the 2016 Final Peace Agreement,  
    • reactivate the talks with the ELN and to redouble its efforts for a negotiated solution with the other armed actors.

In the meantime, it is urgent that progress be made on humanitarian agreements to alleviate the very serious situation of the civilian population in the territories, particularly the ethnic and peasant communities in Colombia, and in particular those at greatest risk, such as the Catatumbo region.

[1] A network of 40 European and international organisations dedicated to the promotion of human rights and peacebuilding in Colombia.

THE BIG EU DEREGULATION

by

Disastrous Omnibus proposal erodes EU’s corporate accountability commitments and slashes human rights and environmental protections.

10 March 2025, Brussels

The publication by the European Commission of its Omnibus proposal revising key corporate sustainability laws sends a clear political signal: President Ursula von der Leyen is deprioritising human rights, workers’ rights and environmental protections for the sake of dangerous deregulation. The Council and Parliament must urgently show leadership by blocking this damaging proposal, as it is jeopardising the very objectives of these laws and undermines not only the EU’s commitment towards its green ambitions and protection of human rights but also its credibility as a reliable law maker.

The Omnibus proposal affects landmark laws passed under the EU’s Green Deal, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and the Taxonomy Regulation. These laws mandate responsible business practices, introduce accountability for corporations abusing human rights and damaging the environment, and
provide access to justice for survivors. They also aim to improve transparency on sustainability reporting and help guide sustainable investment. These are all essential to the EU meeting its goal of being the first climate-neutral continent by 2050.

When President Ursula von der Leyen announced late last year an Omnibus proposal to simplify reporting and sustainability requirements for companies, she committed to upholding in full the spirit and “content of the law,” and stated that the goal of the exercise was to reduce overlapping obligations. The proposal published on 26 February represents a stark departure from this promise and, if implemented, will wipe-out the core purpose of these laws.

The Omnibus proposal would axe many of the CSDDD’s key provisions, making it virtually toothless. It would also delay by one year the transposition of the Directive by the EU Member States. If implemented, in practice this could result in:

  • Civil liability will to a much larger extent be left to EU Member States’ discretion, with the potential of drastically reducing access to justice for victims in front of EU courts. Representative actions are removed, meaning that Non-Governmental Organisations, trade unions, and human rights institutions might be unable to represent victims in court. Lastly, removing the overriding mandatory provision might lead EU courts to apply the laws of the country where the harm occurred instead of national law, which could potentially undermine the overall effectiveness of the civil liability provision.
  • Companies will only be required to assess harms attributable to direct business partners, which reduces drastically the value chain. It is further stated that, if the company has “plausible information” of impacts by indirect partners, it should address them, however such a concept heavily relies on interpretation.
  • There is no longer an obligation to “put […] into effect” Climate Transition Plans, which would introduce a dangerous loophole, allowing companies to comply with the provision, in theory, by simply producing a plan on paper, rather than putting it into action.
  • EU Member States would no longer be able to establish more ambitious rules than the directive when it comes to the identification, prevention and mitigation of human rights and environmental impacts and the establishment of a grievance and notification mechanism.
  • Companies will no longer have to terminate contracts (even in cases where it is possible or likely that abuses continue).
  • Stakeholder engagement will be reduced to those “directly” affected, meaning that consumers groups, national Human Rights Institutions and Non-Governmental Organisations and human rights defenders are excluded from such definition. Also, consultation with “relevant” stakeholders is no longer required for disengagement from business operations or monitoring.
  • The frequency of monitoring the effectiveness of due diligence measures is reduced from every year to every 5 years, or whenever “measures are no longer adequate or effective.” This provision risks making the due diligence exercise largely ineffective.
  • Removal of the minimum cap on sanctions of 5% of the turnover, which may lead to lower and symbolic sanctions and trigger a race to the bottom among Member States.
  • The Commission is no longer obliged to examine the necessity to apply due diligence rules to financial services & investment activities in a future review of the law.

Additionally, the Omnibus proposal envisions substantive changes to the CSRD, which has already been transposed by most of the EU Member States. Consequently, the proposal to postpone the CSRD application by two years for certain businesses (2nd and 3rd wave) creates uncertainty for those that have already started preparing for implementation. Moreover, the Commission proposes to drastically reduce the scope, excluding roughly 80% of companies from sustainability reporting obligations without providing companies with a proportionate standard. This will significantly reduce the availability and reliability of sustainability data. Lastly, it is concerning how the Commission proposes to limit the data requests by very large companies towards their large to mid-sized suppliers.

Sustainability and corporate accountability are essential for European countries to move towards an economy that works for people and the planet, as well as for attracting long-term and sustainable investments. These laws have the potential to promote more resilient supply chains, provide legal clarity and stability for all stakeholders. It is shortsighted to remove the engine from the vehicle that can help companies deliver on their existing human rights responsibilities. Over the last decade, the EU has introduced a range of reporting obligations. Should there be a need for more cohesion, planning and guidance on how to implement these obligations, it should be
achieved through mapping existing and upcoming obligations, issuing interpretive and implementing guidelines and reviewing efficacy of these laws as envisioned by the existing review clauses. Creating more confusion, uncertainty and costs by changing the text of these laws is not the answer.

We therefore urge the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that in the upcoming legislative negotiations, the Omnibus proposal is revised to ensure that any amendments seeking to weaken the CSDDD are rejected. Any discussion of the CSDDD should be strictly limited to interpretative measures such as guidance and delegated acts and the text of the law itself should not be subject to any revisions. Regarding the CSRD, the European Parliament and Council should lower the thresholds of in-scope companies and give mid-sized companies a proportionate standard. The limitations on data requests should be reworked.

The world is watching Europe for guidance and stability. The EU has an opportunity to remain steadfast in its green ambitions and human rights commitments by protecting these essential sustainability laws and recognizing that promoting sustainable business practices will ultimately foster a more stable environment that will give the EU an edge now and in the long run.

Our solidarity is universal.

We are deeply concerned about all victims of armed conflict, repression and violence around the world — from Sudan to Syria, including the persecution of the Rohingya and so many other crises that often receive less international attention than they deserve. Each of these situations calls for solidarity, remembrance, justice and action.

However, we have decided to specifically highlight the message ‘Stop Genocide in Palestine’ because what is happening in Palestine represents not only a human tragedy of enormous magnitude, but also a direct challenge to the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and to the rules-based international system itself. The indifference and complicity of much of the international community in the face of the apartheid regime imposed by the Israeli government on the Palestinian people represent one of the greatest moral and political contradictions of our time.

The persistent violation of essential norms — such as the protection of the civilian population, the prohibition of collective punishment and respect for proportionality in the use of force — not only has devastating consequences for the Palestinian population, but also erodes the global mechanisms designed to limit the power of states and prevent abuses.

When these rules are repeatedly breached without any effective consequences, the framework that protects all populations in conflict situations, anywhere in the world, is weakened. Therefore, speaking out in this case does not mean ignoring other forms of suffering, but rather emphasising the urgency of defending an international order which, if it collapses, leaves everyone in a more vulnerable position.

Drawing attention to this situation is, therefore, an act consistent with the universal values we uphold: the protection of life, human dignity and respect for international law, without exception.

Oidhaco logo - Oficina Internacional de derechos Humanos - Acción Colombia
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.