El litigio interamericano de derechos humanos no cesa de generar sorpresas. Por una parte, con agencias de Estado que confunden el sistema con defensa penal y, por otra, con una Corte Interamericana que, excepcionalmente, rescata a la justicia interna. Pues bien, eso fue lo que precisamente ocurrió en el Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo Vs. Colombia, donde murieron 17 civiles y se causaron heridas a otros 27, mientras se desarrollaban hostilidades entre fuerzas militares del Estado y un grupo de guerrilla de las Farc. En la primera parte de este estudio se ponen de presente las incongruencias del Estado —el único con capacidad para responder ante la Corte—, cuya “defensa” en la mencionada causa se empleó en atacar a su propia rama judicial, bien sea denunciando la existencia de un presunto fraude de la Fiscalía, o bien refutando las decisiones de las instancias penales y contencioso administrativas. Una estrategia que, paradójicamente, podría estar en las antípodas de un beneficio para los militares involucrados en el trágico acontecimiento. En una segunda parte, se analiza la forma en que la Corte idh termina redimiendo a la administración de justicia, calificando de estoppel los argumentos del agente del Estado (con relación a lo actuado ante la cidh) y describiendo, sin dudar, dicho comportamiento como contrario a los principios de buena fe, equidad procesal y seguridad jurídica.

The Inter-American Human Rights system continues to be one full of surprises. On the one hand, there are State official agencies that see no distinction between the system itself and any defense in a typical criminal case, and on the other hand, there is an Inter-American Court that only exceptionally rescues the judicial internal system of the States. That was exactly what occurred in the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia case involving a tragic event where 17 civilians were killed and 27 were injured while a violent fight took place between the Colombian military and the FARC. The first part of this manuscript will feature the inconsistencies of the State –the only entity with standing before the Court– which resorted to a defense that assailed its own Judicial Branch by both denouncing an alleged fraud on the part of the Prosecutor’s Office and by dismissing the decisions made by the criminal and administrative judicial instances. Ironically enough, this strategy could well be the total opposite of what an appropriate defense of the troops involved in this tragic event should look like. The second part of this manuscript will feature the form in which the Inter-American Court ended up saving the judicial branch when it labeled the grounds of the State agent (as to the defense presented before the IAHR Commission) as estoppel and when it described such behavior, without hesitation, as contrary to the principles of good faith, equity and legal stability.