Colombian President challenges 6 of 159 articles of special competence for peace

Ambbadador of Colombia to Ghana, Ms. Claudia Turbay Quintero

The President of the Republic of Colombia, Mr. Iván Duque Márquez, opposed six of the 159 articles of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP) Bill..

the decision was made because several sections of the bill are not suitable for the country, to the extent that they could give rise to situations of impunity, abuse or distortion of the benefits provided for in the Final Agreement and impede its implementation.

In addition, Article 166 of the Colombian Constitution empowers the President to raise these objections before signing the bill to promulgate if it turns out that the bill infringes the rights of citizens from the country.

Each of the objections was aimed at improving and correcting the transitional justice system agreed in the Final Agreement and the country was advised not to fear an open debate on the proposed amendments, in a constructive manner and without any intention of polarization. .

The concern is with the six contested sections that are still in the bill and that would become effective, if the President has signed without making any amendments.

Ghana News Titles

For the latest news in Ghana, visit the Graphic Online titles page
Ghana News Page

Ms. Claudia Turbay Quintero, ambbadador of Colombia to Ghana, who explained the position of the President and the Government on this decision, said that these articles could create situations of impunity, allow abuse of the benefits provided in the The final agreement, impede judicial cooperation with other Member States and hinder future peace negotiations. They include those that could hinder the payment of reparations to victims, she added.

Mrs Turbay Quintero m said "The objections raised for inconvenient reasons did not seek to paralyze the SJP (or the JEP in Spanish), nor to hinder its operation, but aimed at ensuring the compatibility of the norm that governed it with the human rights treaties. 39, who prevailed in national and international conventions. Legal system. "

Impractical provision

The ambbadador said that full compensation to the victims was an inconvenient provision because it did not clearly establish the main obligation of the authors of compensation to pay full compensation to the victims.

She emphasized the need for Colombians to understand the importance of clarifying that alleged perpetrators must obtain material compensation for their property in order to satisfy the rights of the victim.

Ms. Turbay Quintero pointed out that under the final agreement, war crimes and crimes against humanity were not likely of amnesty in all circumstances, as required by international law.

She stated that "the government considers that it is unacceptable that a person who could be guilty of a heinous crime of international concern may be exonerated from punishment, simply on the grounds that it does not could not be considered as a main author.

The Ambbadador stated that Article 63 (8) was inconvenient, as it did not determine the extent of the power badigned to the High Commissioner for Peace to verify the list of persons recognized as members of an organized armed group who has concluded a peace agreement. process.

She pointed out that another objection to remedy a possible path to impunity concerned the lack of continuity in the investigation of heinous crimes.

C & # 39; was so essential for the process of the ordinary justice system to continue to function effectively in relation to crimes, ordered and final transfer of powers and procedures to the SJP.

Final agreement

The ambbadador pointed out that the government of President Duque Márquez was determined to implement the final agreement on the resolution of the conflict, signed in December 2016 with the FARC, as part of a policy wider territorial stabilization and peacebuilding. coexistence.

She pointed out that the objections raised against the legal status bill, aimed at strengthening this commitment in the framework of the strictest respect for constitutional procedures, the rule of law and the democratic order and aimed at strengthening transitional justice.

In the end, she explained that the government's motivation was to prevent the consolidation of norms and procedures affecting the victims' right to truth, justice, reparation and non-renewal, the essential axis of the law. SJP, any transitional justice mechanism and justice. The final agreement itself.

The ambbadador said that it was not true that the SJP was paralyzed or that it stopped working because of objections, adding that it was also wrong to say that the objection of a limited number of articles of the draft law resulted in a conflict with the judiciary.

She m said "The president has the greatest respect for the decisions of the Constitutional Court, which is the guardian of the Constitution and an organ that has the last word on all constitutional issues."

Reasoning

Regarding the reason for being goals, the ambbadador said that if the president signed the bill as it had been submitted for consideration, he would act irresponsibly to the country as a whole, to Colombian society and, in particular, to the victims.

In particular, she stated that the President had concluded that, according to this version of the draft law, several scenarios of impunity could arise, which would imply the violation of the international obligations of the Colombian State, arising from the human rights treaties and, in particular, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Scope presidential powers

Ms. Turbay Quintero pointed out that by partly expressing herself against the draft law, the President exercised the power provided by the Constitution and contributed to a normative construction process in which the three branches had participated.

On the part of the executive, when drafting the original text, the Congress, when it approved and introduced the adjustments that he deemed necessary, and the Constitutional Court, during its examination, to verify its compatibility with the Constitution and to modify some of its provisions.

In the case of statutory bills, the Constitution provided that the constitutional badysis must be carried out before the draft is sent to the President for approval.