Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Paramilitary Demobilisation in Colombia: Between Peace and Justice

 Printable version

How does Colombia’s Justice and Peace Law balance the needs for peace and justice? To what extent does the paramilitary demobilisation process meet international standards for justice, truth and reparations? This paper from the Fundación para les Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior examines Colombia’s Justice and Peace Law in relation to justice, truth and reparation. It argues that while the law uses the language of human rights and justice, it is lacking in mechanisms to put these principles into practice.

Colombia’s Justice and Peace Law aims to strike a balance between peace and justice. It offers sentencing benefits for paramilitaries who demobilise in order to produce positive effects relating to truth, reparation for victims and crime repetition prevention. A Constitutional Court ruling on the law has amended key aspects, making it a more effective instrument for achieving peace and justice. The achievement of these goals, however, does not depend exclusively on a legal framework that meets international standards for justice truth and reparation. Successful demobilisation will ultimately depend on the state’s ability to undermine the economic, social and military power of paramilitaries in vast areas of the country.

International treaties and guidelines make clear that processes of transitional justice must respect justice, truth, the right of victims to reparation and guarantees of non-repetition. The Justice and Peace Law provides a robust statement on the right to truth, but does not offer adequate instruments to put it into practice. While the Constitutional Court has tried to correct deficiencies with regard to reparation, the law still lacks mechanisms to guarantee victims’ right to reparation. Non-repetition guarantees are largely absent from the law. In regard to justice, the Justice and Peace Law contains a number of controversial aspects:

• The ‘residual’ nature of the law. Some have seen this as providing impunity for the majority of those involved in the demobilisation process. To avoid this, it has been stressed that the law and other demobilisation laws are not mutually exclusive.
• Alternative sentencing. Some have criticised the excessive leniency of alternative sentences in the law. The Constitutional Court ruled alternative sentencing constitutional, provided it guaranteed basic rights to justice, truth and reparation.
• The reduced investigation period. Some have argued that the law gives the Attorney General’s Office insufficient time to investigate crimes. However, the law also sets out the minimum basic requirements for investigations.
• Temporary placement zones and calculation of sentences. The Constitutional Court ruled that time spent in temporary placement zones could not count towards sentences, since staying in these zones constitutes a voluntary act.
• Extradition. Article 71 of the Law grants a political character to paramilitaries, preventing their extradition. The Court ruled this unconstitutional.

Colombia’s demobilisation process will face a number of challenges:

• The process is partial and fragmentary, not including important actors such as the guerrilla groups.
• The adequate application of the Law according to the logic of victims’ rights is the major challenge for the process of demobilisation. In the early stages of the process both positive and worrying signs are evident.
• The absence of measures and incentives for the reintegration of ex-combatants into civil society could derail demobilisation.
• The effective dismantling of paramilitary structures with their vast economic, social and political power constitutes a major obstacle in the demobilisation process.

Access full text