By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The family of a Colombian fisherman, Alejandro Carranza, killed in a US strike in the Caribbean has filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The petition alleges Carranza’s extrajudicial killing violated his human rights, and names US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as responsible, also claiming President Trump ratified his conduct. Since September, the US has conducted multiple strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats, and the petitioners seek compensation for Carranza’s family and an end to such killings. The IACHR is now involved and has expressed concerns about the US strikes.
Read the original article here
The family of a Colombian man, Alejandro Carranza, who was reportedly killed in a US strike in the Caribbean, has taken a significant step, filing a formal complaint against the US with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). This is a landmark move, believed to be the first of its kind, specifically targeting these types of military actions in the region.
The core of the complaint, submitted by US human rights attorney Dan Kovalik, centers around the claim that Carranza, a Colombian fisherman, was the victim of an extra-judicial killing when the US military targeted his boat on September 15th. The filing contends that the US government, and specifically names Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as responsible, violated Carranza’s human rights with this action. The complaint seeks compensation for Carranza’s family, and perhaps more importantly, aims to put a stop to these kinds of killings.
The attorney argues that such actions are in direct violation of both international and US law. The US government, in response to queries, has deferred to the White House on the matter. This sets the stage for a potential legal and diplomatic showdown, with the Carranza family seeking accountability for the death of their loved one.
The US has carried out numerous strikes, at least 22, against alleged drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific since early September, reportedly resulting in the deaths of at least 83 individuals. These strikes have been justified by the US government by claiming the targeted boats were associated with drug cartels and engaged in armed conflict. The White House maintains that these actions are in line with the Law of Armed Conflict, which is a legal framework designed to protect civilians during wartime.
However, the specific incident involving Carranza raises serious questions. The former Colombian President, Gustavo Petro, has stated that Carranza was simply a fisherman, with no links to the drug trade, highlighting a critical disparity between the US’s claims and the reality on the ground. President Petro acknowledged that Carranza might have carried prohibited goods due to his financial needs, but stated this should not warrant the death penalty. This discrepancy is at the heart of the legal argument.
According to the complaint, Carranza was fishing for marlin and tuna when the strike occurred. This account directly contradicts the US’s assertion that the targeted boats were engaged in illicit activities. The complaint filed on behalf of Carranza’s family is the first of its kind, and it’s anticipated that more similar cases may follow.
There is a sense that the US is using the “drug runner” label as a justification for actions that may be illegal, and a belief that the situation lacks sufficient transparency and accountability. The fact that Trump pardoned a bunch of drug traffickers and criminals who built the “Silk Road” for drug traffickers shows the hypocrisy. The risk of targeting innocent civilians in such strikes is a significant concern. There is a deep concern that the US is acting with impunity, without facing consequences for its actions, particularly given the power dynamics in international law.
This case is seen by many as a potential step toward holding the US accountable, and bringing justice to the families of those who have died in these strikes. The issue of holding the US accountable is a big challenge, especially given the US government has a history of not recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The “American Service-Members’ Protection Act” of 2002 is another hurdle to overcome.
The “Hague Invasion Act” gives the president the ability to invade any country that attempts to bring a US official before the International Criminal Court, or any other body that would pursue legal action against them. There is a lot of skepticism, and a perception that the government protects its own, no matter the cost, even if it means defending them against accusations of war crimes.
Those in power, regardless of political affiliation, rarely face consequences for their actions. This creates an environment where accountability becomes a challenge. The fact that the US government will protect its own, and not allow a US official to be extradited, makes it even harder to hold them responsible.