The family of Alejandro Carranza Medina, a 42-year-old Colombian fisherman, has ignited an international firestorm after filing a formal complaint against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The complaint, submitted on December 2, 2025, accuses the U.S. government of murdering Carranza during a military strike on September 15 in the Caribbean Sea—a campaign that has left more than 80 people dead and drawn mounting scrutiny from human rights groups, legal experts, and political leaders across the Americas.
For Carranza’s widow, Katerine Hernandez, the facts are clear: her husband was a “good man” whose “daily activity was fishing,” not drug trafficking, as she told AFP in October. Carranza’s family and supporters say his boat was adrift, displaying a distress signal after its engine failed, when it was struck by U.S. military forces. “He had no ties to drug trafficking,” Hernandez emphasized, echoing the words of Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who has publicly denounced the attack as an extrajudicial killing and a violation of Colombian sovereignty.
The family’s petition to the IACHR, as reported by The Guardian and ABC News, alleges that U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the bombing of boats like Carranza’s “despite the fact that he did not know the identity of those being targeted for these bombings and extra-judicial killings.” The complaint further asserts that President Donald Trump “ratified the conduct of Secretary Hegseth,” making both men responsible for the deadly strike. “From numerous news reports, we know that Pete Hegseth, US Secretary of Defense, was responsible for ordering the bombing of boats like those of Alejandro Carranza Medina and the murder of all those on such boats,” the complaint reads, according to The Guardian.
The September 15 incident was just one episode in a rapidly expanding U.S. military campaign targeting suspected drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Since early September, the Trump administration has publicly acknowledged 21 strikes, resulting in at least 83 deaths, according to Pentagon figures cited by AFP and Truthout. President Trump has insisted these operations are aimed at “narcoterrorists from Venezuela” and that the vessels were “transporting illegal narcotics headed to the U.S.” “Big bags of cocaine and fentanyl” were left floating in the ocean after the strike that killed Carranza, Trump told reporters at the time.
Yet, critics say the administration’s claims are thinly substantiated. Carranza’s family, along with President Petro, maintain that the fisherman had “no ties to the drug trade” and was simply pursuing his livelihood when the attack occurred. “US government officials have committed murder and violated our sovereignty in territorial waters,” Petro declared on social media. “The fisherman, Alejandro Carranza, had no ties to drug trafficking; his daily activity was fishing. The Colombian boat was adrift and had its engine out of service. We await an explanation from the US government.”
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a body within the Organization of American States, responded swiftly to the complaint. On December 2, the IACHR issued a statement expressing “deep concern” about the U.S. strikes campaign. The commission called on the United States to “refrain from employing lethal military force in the context of public security operations, ensuring that any counter-crime or security operation fully complies with international human rights standards; conduct prompt, impartial, and independent investigations into all deaths and detentions resulting from these actions; and adopt effective measures to prevent recurrence.” While the IACHR can investigate and issue findings, its decisions are not legally binding on the U.S., which has not ratified the treaty necessary to enforce its rulings.
At the heart of the legal and ethical debate is the question of whether the U.S. military strikes comply with international law. The Pentagon maintains that the operations “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” as a spokesperson told ABC News. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has staunchly defended the legality of the strikes, telling reporters at the White House that he did not witness any follow-up strikes and that the admiral who ordered a controversial second attack “made the right call.” However, a recent Washington Post report, corroborated by sources speaking to ABC News and Truthout, alleges that on September 2, a so-called “double tap” strike occurred: after an initial missile strike left survivors clinging to wreckage, a second missile was fired, killing the remaining passengers. Hegseth has denied direct involvement, attributing the incident to the “fog of war,” while calling the Washington Post report “fake.”
Legal experts, including some within the U.S. government, have voiced alarm. They note that international law, as well as the Pentagon’s own manual, prohibits attacks on civilians and the shipwrecked. Drug trafficking, they argue, is not considered an act of combat under international law, and thus does not justify lethal military force. “The executive branch does not have authority to carry out strikes on civilians just because they labelled them as ‘narco-terrorists’ without evidence,” several analysts told Truthout. Rights groups have gone further, warning that such actions could constitute war crimes if noncombatants are targeted or denied due process.
The controversy has spilled over into U.S. domestic politics, with lawmakers from both parties calling for investigations into the strikes and questioning whether President Trump possesses the constitutional authority to order them. The administration, meanwhile, has doubled down. Trump renewed threats of possible land strikes on Venezuela, stating, “We know every route, we know every house, we know where they manufacture [drugs]. And I think you’re going to see it very soon on land.” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has accused Trump of using the fight against drug trafficking as a pretext for regime change in Caracas.
For Carranza’s family and their attorney, Pittsburgh-based human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik, the IACHR complaint represents more than just a search for justice—it’s an urgent plea to halt a campaign they see as indiscriminate and unlawful. “His profession and his vocation was fishing,” Kovalik said of Carranza, as reported by Truthout. “We hope this case will pressure the U.S. to curb its strikes, even if the decision is nonbinding.”
The case of Alejandro Carranza Medina has become a rallying point for critics of the U.S. anti-drug campaign, galvanizing opposition both in Colombia and internationally. As the IACHR begins its review, the world watches to see whether the mounting outcry will force a change in policy—or whether the strikes, and the controversy surrounding them, will continue unabated.
