The Peace Agreement signed by the Government of Colombia and the FARC-EP Guerrilla in 2016, foresaw the establishment of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace – SJP (Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz – JEP). The SJP is a specialized transitional justice mechanism that offers the perpetrators of grave crimes the possibility of accessing “restorative sanctions”, when recognizing their responsibility in the commission of the crimes, telling the whole truth, contributing to victim’s reparation and offering guarantees of non-repetition. The SJP was implemented through a constitutional amendment, as well as a Statutory Law. The Constitutional Court has defined the constitutional limits to the SJP Statutory Law in the Decision C-080/2018. This presentation will expose the main judicial problems that the Constitutional Court had to face in order to guarantee a stable and lasting peace in Colombia, based in the full respect of the Constitution.
In a constitutional reform (Legislative Act 03 of 2017) the Congress regulated the most important aspects related to the participation in politics of the former members of the guerrilla. The Constitutional Court made the review of this reform in decision C-027 of 2018. Among the most relevant aspects of the amendment is the possibility that ex-combatants, even those who have committed atrocious crimes, could participate in politics, creating five seats in the Senate and five seats in the House of Representatives; the granting of a political party and the financiation of it, the possibility that this political party use the public media and that the political party have representatives within the jurisdictional body that deals with the organization and monitoring of the elections (National Electoral Council). The paper will analyze the most important aspects of the ruling and the criticisms that were given about this decision.
Colombia has been characterized as a heterogeneous Sstate with lack of fundamental citizen rights and institutions in many parts of the territory that have suffer the main consecuences of war and illegal economies. In these territories justice is not principally supply by state legal system and institutions, but conflicts are solved by armed illegal groups and community ethnic customs and authorities. Farc guerilla disarmament and demobilization caused an authority vacuum that needs to be filled by the state as a part of peace-building process. As a result of a fieldwork carried out in black country communities in Guapi, South Cauca, we will describe an analyse conflicts management and resolution procedures that are taking place in the field after peace accord and we will ask about the possibilities of building an integrated local system of justice.
The purpose of this presentation is to highlight relations between local normativity and constitutional evolutions, and in the case of Colombia, how indigenous justice became a source of law for the constitutional order for the peace. Indeed, the 1991’s Constitution integrated the legal pluralism; furthermore, in 2016 stated a transitional justice process to put and end to the internal armed conflict. This socio-juridical panorama allowed that on February 6, 2019, an emblematic trial led by indigenous Nasas authorities took place in Tacueyo, in the North of Cauca. In this trial were judged eight indigenous members of an illegal armed group, for having entering an indigenous territory with weapons. We will analyse transfers and discords between community and constitutional jurisdictions, and how can local practices constitute ways of resistances, in addition of culturally adapted alternatives to institutional mechanisms of transitional justice.
Colombian Constitution recognized the Right to Peace in 1991. Peace is both, an individual and a collective right. As an individual right, its holders are all human beings. As a collective right, its holders are peoples and communities affected by war. Then, a Peace Agreement (PA) should be demanded not only by those who signed a PA , but also by the holders of the Right to Peace. Additionally, peace has a negative and a positive component. Negative peace is related to the end of the armed conflict and peace-keeping process. Positive peace is related to the comprehensive protection of Human Rights, conditions for development and reduction of inequality. How can this characterization of the Right to Peace contribute to defining juridical nature –or not- of the Final Agreement signed by the Colombian Government with the guerrilla FARC? The Colombian Constitutional Court addressed this topic when studying the constitutional amendment about juridical value of the PA (AL 02/17).