A family from Santa Marta, Colombia, has filed the first complaint against the United States before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), alleging that a relative was killed in one of that country’s attacks on alleged “narco-boats” in the Caribbean. The family of the deceased claims that Alejandro Carranza Medina was a fisherman who had nothing to do with drug-trafficking activities. Through their legal representative, they state that the shooting at the vessel was not an act of war but an extrajudicial execution.
The petitioners — the fisherman’s partner and children — say that Carranza went out to fish as he usually did, searching for marlin and tuna, when his boat was struck by a U.S. projectile on Sept. 15. Their report describes a journey that had needed to return to port after suffering an engine failure, which prompted an emergency signal: a call for help, not the escape of criminals.
The complaint directly accuses the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, of ordering the bombing without sufficient information about the identity of those on board, a chain of decisions that, according to the family, culminated in the death of an innocent person.
Family of Colombian man killed in ‘narco-boat’ attack files IACHR complaint against the US
The complaint was formalized by human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik, based in the United States, and filed on behalf of Carranza’s widow and children. The text states that the boat “was hit by the U.S. operation,” which would have constituted a violation of the right to life and due process, rights protected under international human rights treaties.
The filing before the IACHR also demands that the United States assume responsibility, compensate the family, and halt operations that do not distinguish between civilians and alleged drug traffickers and that, so far, have caused at least 82 deaths — according to U.S. data — without providing any evidence of the victims’ involvement in the alleged illegal activities.
“These deaths violate international law. They violate U.S. law. We want this to stop, and we believe this is at least a first step toward making that happen,” said the plaintiff attorney, who is also the same lawyer hired by Colombian President Gustavo Petro to defend himself against U.S. accusations of participating in drug trafficking activities.
The case brought by the Santa Marta family is the first international legal action linked to the bombing of boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific this year. Since September, Washington has acknowledged at least 22 such operations, justified under the pretext of combating drug trafficking and the shipment of drugs to the United States. That a family has dared to bring this case before the IACHR could open the door to broader collective legal action, especially if other victims decide to join.
Regarding the specific attack in which the Colombian man was killed, President Trump claimed that the Sept. 15 operation had killed three “narco-terrorists from Venezuela” who were transporting drugs to the United States. But Kovalik asserts that Carranza, a Colombian citizen, was simply fishing when he died in the attack. “That’s what he was doing. It was his profession and his vocation,” he said.
A legal precedent with regional implications
The U.S. government justifies the operations on the grounds that they are confronting transnational criminal organizations that pose threats to regional security. From this perspective, the destroyed vessels are not simple fishing boats but channels for transporting drugs to U.S. territory, and therefore are legitimized within the framework of what Washington defines as an international armed conflict.
But the complainants reject that interpretation. They argue that Carranza was a commercial fisherman with no criminal record or formal suspicions, and that the vessel was sailing with an emergency signal due to mechanical failures. Even authorities from his home country, Colombia, joined the accusation: President Gustavo Petro described the death as unjustified and emphasized that the military action could not be equated with a lawful interdiction operation unless criminal ties were proven. For him, it was the death of a civilian, not a drug trafficker.
There is also an allegation — supported by recent reports — that in at least one incident, the same vessel may have been attacked twice: a first bombing, followed by a second one while some people were trying to survive or flee. If confirmed, such a practice would raise serious doubts about compliance with the principle of proportionality and with international humanitarian law, and would reinforce concerns over the indiscriminate use of lethal force.
This case not only exposes the human cost of a high-risk military strategy, but also its potential political, diplomatic, and legal consequences. The plaintiff attorney argued that by bringing the complaint before the IACHR, the family is not only seeking redress, but also aiming to expose — on the international stage — that the operations do not distinguish between drug traffickers and fishermen, and that innocent lives have been lost.
It will now be up to the IACHR to decide whether to admit the claim, as well as whether to investigate the events, demand evidence from the United States, and, if warranted, recommend the adoption of reparations and guarantees of nonrepetition. A public hearing could even be convened, which would put pressure on Washington and open the door to new claims from other affected families.
For Colombia, the case represents a public denunciation of what it considers unjustified “extrajudicial executions,” at a time when political tensions have created an unprecedented situation in relations between the two countries, following Trump’s threat to directly strike targets on Colombian territory.