Abstract
This chapter explains that the regulation of victims’ rights in the 2004 Colombian Criminal Procedure Code (2004 CPC) has generated many reactions from different and competing actors. These reactions have led to a substantial transformation of the role and rights of victims in the criminal process after the 2004 CPC. This chapter identifies the actors and forces that led to those transformations and analyzes them critically. This chapter begins with a brief discussion of some elements of the political context over the last decade. It then examines some of the reactions to the 2004 CPC: i) constitutionality challenges for victims’ rights to the 2004 CPC and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court; ii) amendments to the 2004 CPC to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system; iii) a punitive backlash against the 2004 CPC to ensure crime control, public security, and protection of crime victims and potential victims; and iv) strategies of women’s advocates to complement and counterreform the 2004 CPC to address gender violence, especially domestic violence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
La Silla Vacía, Quién es Quién: Álvaro Uribe Vélez (http://lasillavacia.com/quienesquien/perfilquien/alvaro-uribe-velez).
- 2.
During 2008, 19 young men disappeared from Soacha and Bogotá. Military officers reported that these men were killed in combat. Their families alleged that they were victims of forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions. Evidence indicates that they were not members of guerrilla groups and combats were invented (Fundación para la Educación y el Desarrollo—FEDES 2010).
- 3.
The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and genocide committed in the territory or by the nationals of Colombia since November 1 of 2002. Also, the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes since November 1 of 2009. The situation in Colombia has been under preliminary examination since June of 2004. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has received 114 communications under Article 15 about the situation in this country.
In November of 2012, the OTP published an interim report providing an overview of the preliminary investigation on the situation in Colombia. This report states that there is reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed by members of State forces and non-state actors (FARC, ELN and paramilitary groups). Moreover, the OTP highlights that the Colombian authorities have been conducting a large number of proceedings over ICC crimes, under the ordinary criminal justice system and Justice and Peace Law. Some of these proceedings have been conducted against a significant number of leaders or those who appear to bear the greatest responsiblility for the most serious crimes perpetrated by non-state actors. Finally, the OTP points out that the preliminary examination of the situation in Colombia continues (OTP, Interim Report, Situation in Colombia, November 2012).
- 4.
UN, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, Mission to Colombia, 31 March 2010, pp. 2–3.
- 5.
UN, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, Mission to Colombia, 31 March 2010, p. 24.
El Espectador, May 5, 2009, “Mindefensa advierte que podrá judicializar a quien levante falsas denuncias contra FF.”
La W Radio, March 4, 2009 “Vicepresidente denuncia plan de desprestigio internacional contra el gobierno.”
- 6.
Presidential Statement, September 8, 2003.
- 7.
Informe Anual del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos sobre la situación de derechos humanos y derecho internacional humanitario en Colombia, Año 2003.
Informe Anual de la Alta Comisionada de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos sobre la situación de derechos humanos y derecho internacional humanitario en Colombia, Año 2004.
- 8.
Proyecto de Ley 157 de 2007 Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 502, 2007, Proyecto de Ley 044 de 2008 Cámara.
- 9.
Gacetas del Congreso 835 y 861, 2009.
- 10.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-141 of 2010, Justice Humberto Sierra Porto..
- 11.
La Silla Vacía, Quién es Quién: Juan Manuel Santos Calderón http://lasillavacia.com/quienesquien/perfilquien/juan-manuel-santos-calderon
The Economist, April 7, 2012, “Santos v Uribe.” http://www.economist.com/node/21552204.
- 12.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-579 of 2013, Justice Jorge Ignacio Pretelt.
- 13.
La Silla Vacía, October 27, 2014, “Surge un movimiento de víctimas contra las FARC.” http://lasillavacia.com/historia/surge-un-movimiento-de-victimas-contra-las-farc-48980.
- 14.
Uprimny Rodrigo, El Espectador, July 26, 2014, “El uribismo, la paz y la impunidad.” http://www.elespectador.com/opinion/el-uribismo-paz-y-impunidad-columna-506871.
- 15.
La Silla Vacía, April 9, 2015, “El cotice de las víctimas.” http://lasillavacia.com/historia/el-cotice-de-las-victimas-49888.
- 16.
FARC attacks and actions increased by 10% in the first half of 2011. According to the NGO “Nuevo Arco Iris,” actions by the FARC had an upward trend since 2009. Thus, “Nuevo Arco Iris” concluded that the change of government and Santos’ security policies did not cause the increase in armed actions by the FARC (Valencia and Avila 2011).
- 17.
Within the National Citizen Security and Coexistence Policy, citizen security and coexistence are defined as follows:
“In this regard, and for the purposes of the Policy, Citizen Security is understood as the universal protection of citizens from crimes and contraventions that affect their dignity, their personal security and the security of their property; and from the fear of insecurity. Coexistence, in turn, is understood as the promotion of attachment and support among citizens of a citizen culture based on respect for the law, for others, and for basic norms of social behavior and coexistence” (Presidential Advisory Office on Citizen Security and Coexistence and National Planning Department, National Citizen Security and Coexistence Policy and Implementation Strategy http://wsp.presidencia.gov.co/Seguridad-Ciudadana/consejeria/Documents/Pol%C3%ADtica%20Nacional%20de%20Seguridad%20y%20Convivencia%20Ciudadana-Inglés.pdf).
- 18.
The Constitutional Court may declare a rule “conditionally constitutional.” In such decisions, the Court refuses to declare invalid the provision. Instead, the Court declares that the constitutionality of the rule depends on its implementation according to the doctrine of the Constitutional Court. In consequence, the Court acts as a positive legislator and not just as a negative legislator.
- 19.
See the biographical information of the other eight justices of the Constitutional Court in Chap. 1.
- 20.
- 21.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-591 of 2005, Justice Clara Inés Vargas.
- 22.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-979 of 2005, Justice Jaime Córdoba.
The Constitutional Court declared the constitutionality of this regulatory function of the Attorney General for the following reasons. First, this handbook would contain general regulation, so it would be compatible with the independence of prosecutors dealing with specific cases. Second, this regulatory function would implement principles of unitary management and hierarchy established for the Office of the Attorney General (art. 251 Const.). Third, this regulation should develop the criminal policy designed by the Constitution and legislation. Finally, this regulatory function would ensure some constitutional provisions such as the principle of equality (art. 13), and rights of victims (art. 250).
- 23.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-979 of 2005, Justice Jaime Córdoba.
- 24.
Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century, 10th United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Vienna, 10-17 April 2000, A/CONF. 184/4/Rev. 3, par. 29.
Bangkok Declaration—Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, 11th United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Bangkok, 18-25 April 2005, par. 32.
Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programs in Criminal Matters adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 2002.
- 25.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-979 of 2005, Justice Jaime Córdoba.
- 26.
See, e.g., Constitutional Court, Judgments C- 226 of 1996; C- 242 of 1997; C- 160 of 1999; C- 893 of 2001; C- 1257 of 2001; C- 1195 of 2001 and C- 187 of 2003.
- 27.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-591 of 2005, Justice Clara Inés Vargas; Judgment C-979 of 2005, Justice Jaime Córdoba.
- 28.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-979 of 2005, Justice Jaime Córdoba.
- 29.
Constitutional Court, judgment C-004 of 2003, Justice Eduardo Montealegre.
- 30.
The revision action aims at retracting a judgment that has become res judicata, so a new ruling may be given on factual and legal grounds.
- 31.
Constitutional Court, judgment C-979 of 2005, Justice Jaime Córdoba.
- 32.
See, for example, the following cases:
IACtHR, Case of the 19 Tradesmen, Judgment of July 5, 2004, par. 170, 173, 174. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the IACtHR of February 2, 2006. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the IACtHR of July 10, 2007, par. 3. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the IACtHR of July 8, 2009.
Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Chamber, case number 24841, March 6, 2008, Justice Javier Zapata Ortiz.
IACtHR, Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 12, 2005, par. 95. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the IACtHR of January 31, 2008.
Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Chamber, case number 26021, September 17, 2008, Justice Jorge Luis Quintero Milanés.
IACtHR, Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006, par. 309, 316, 323, 324, 325.
Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Chamber, case number 26180, December 9, 2010, Justice Alfredo Gómez Quintero.
IACtHR, Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008, par. 165, 168, 170.
Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Chamber, case number 29075, July 6, 2011, Justice José Leonidas Bustos Martínez.
- 33.
Interview with Luis Guillermo Pérez, Lawyer, José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers’ Collective -CAJAR, July 30, 2014.
- 34.
Some scholars argue that human rights prosecutions can contribute to consolidate democracy and rule of law, improve human rights conditions, undermine practices of impunity of state officials for gross human rights abuses, and prevent the renewal of conflict in transitional countries (Michel and Sikkink 2013; Sikkink 2011).
- 35.
Articles 11, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, and 357 of the 2004 CPC.
- 36.
Mario Iguarán was elected from a list submitted by President Uribe in 2005. Iguarán was the Attorney General from August 2005 to July 2009.
- 37.
Intervention in Judgment C-454/06.
- 38.
Intervention of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice in Judgment C-454/06.
- 39.
Constitutional Court, judgment C-454 of 2006, Justice Jaime Córdoba.
- 40.
See, e.g., articles 284, 289, 306, 316, 333, 339, 342, 344, 348, 350, 351, 352, 356, 358, 359 of the 2004 CPC.
- 41.
- 42.
Articles 11, 137, 284, 306, 316, 324, 327, 333, 337, 339, 342, 344, 356, 357, 358, 359, 371, 378, 391, and 395 of the 2004 CPC.
- 43.
Interventions in the Judgment C-209/07.
- 44.
Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, United Nations, General Assembly, Resolution 40/34,1985.
- 45.
Intervention of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice in Judgment C-209/07.
- 46.
See, e.g., Constitutional Court, judgments C-343 of 2007, Justice Rodrigo Escobar, C-516 of 2007, Justice Jaime Cordoba.
- 47.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-209 of 2007, Justice Manuel José Cepeda.
- 48.
Interview with Aquiles Arrieta, Assistant Justice in the Constitutional Court, May 2014.
- 49.
According to Langer, one of the main uses of the adversarial versus inquisitorial distinction is as normative models
[A]dversarial” and “inquisitorial” are used as normative models. These models include a set of positive or negative principles or features that can be used to evaluate actual criminal proceedings, to make decisions in individual cases, and to advance criminal procedure reform. Arguments in favor of the normative appeal of adversarial and inquisitorial processes have been based on the allegedly superior epistemological capacity, consistency with human rights, higher transparency, democratic character, or efficiency of the adversarial process over the inquisitorial one, or vice versa (Langer 2014, pp. 899, 900).
- 50.
In the U.S., many victims’ rights statutes grant victims a right “to be heard” in certain criminal proceedings (e.g. bail hearings, plea bargain hearings, sentencing, and parole hearings). None of these statutes recognize a right to participate at trial (Beloof et al. 2010; Gillis and Beloof 2001).
- 51.
Langer conceptualizes the appropriation and translation of transnational legal ideas and institutions by national or local actors as “legal translation.” Langer proposes the metaphor of the legal translation to reassess the metaphor of the “legal transplant”, which has been one of the main categories used in comparative law to analyze the transfer of legal ideas and institutions among legal systems. According to Langer, the metaphor of transplant is insufficient to fully explain the transformation of the transferred legal ideas and institutions in the receiving legal system (2004). For descriptions of the metaphor of legal transplant see (Berkowitz et al. 2003; Mattei 1994; Miller 2003; Schauer 2000; Watson 1993).
- 52.
The distinction between field of production and field of reception is a device used to explain the circulation of ideas and institutions between countries (Bourdieu 1999; López Medina 2004).
- 53.
See, for example, article 19 CPC of Costa Rica; articles 53, 55, 56, 400 and 405 CPC of Chile; articles 18, 20, 27 and 270 CPC of Bolivia.
- 54.
See, for example, articles 20, 62 and 75 CPC of Costa Rica; articles 26 CPC of Bolivia; articles 26, 96 and 116 CPC of Guatemala.
- 55.
See, for example, num. 78–85 Model Criminal Procedure Code for Iberian America; articles 76, 292, 293, 307, 315, 316, 341, 347, 349, 356 and 358 CPC of Costa Rica; article 82 CPC of Argentina; articles 235, 261, 325 and 338 CPC of Chile; articles 317, 318, 320, 322, 327, 329, 342, 348, 353, 356, 386, 387 and 395 CPC of Paraguay; articles 116, 306, 307, 340, 341, 348, 349, 356 and 373 CPC of Bolivia.
- 56.
According to Fletcher,
The better approach would be to permit the victim or the next of kin, either in person or through a lawyer, to appear in the trial to ask questions of the witnesses. It is not clear how many victims would do this rather than entrust the case to the prosecutor. The privilege would probably be exercised in rare cases, only where the prosecutor fails to gain the victim’s confidence. In the atypical case where the victim wants to intervene, it would be better to allow the third voice at trial rather than freeze out the party for whom the proceedings may carry greater positive meaning than for anyone else (Fletcher 1995, p. 250).
- 57.
Beloof proposes direct victim participation in the following terms:
In serious (if not all) crimes, or where a victim is particularly vulnerable (such as a child or mentally impaired person), or where a conflict develops between the victim and the prosecutor, the victim should have the right to counsel at trial (and at other stages of the criminal process). The victim’s counsel should not be under the control of the public prosecutor… The victim and victim’s counsel would occupy a third table during the trial with the opportunity to engage in voir dire selection, opening statement, questioning and calling witnesses, objecting to evidence, and closing argument. The victim and victim’s attorney would be subject to the same court and evidentiary rules that apply to other parties. These rules sufficiently protect against potential vindictiveness” (Beloof 1999, pp. 318, 319).
- 58.
Constitutional Court, Judgments C-144 of 2010, Justice Juan Carlos Henao; C-260 of 2011, Justice Jorge Iván Palacio. These decisions were adopted unanimously.
- 59.
Some studies in the U.S. show that participation of victims in certain criminal proceedings (e.g. sentencing, plea bargaining) help victims without any significant negative impact to the interests of defendants and prosecutors (Barajas and Nelson 1997, pp. 18–19; Kelly 1991; Welling 1997).
- 60.
For instance, human rights organizations have claimed that some state authorities have contributed to the production of impunity for cases of “false positives” (Fundación para la Educación y el Desarrollo—FEDES 2010).
- 61.
The “Las Pavas” case is a good example. The community of “Las Pavas” is a group of peasants who were victims of forced displacement perpetrated by paramilitary groups and drug traffickers. A powerful corporation bought the land after the forced displacement. Since 2010, a prosecutor in Cartagena was investigating the forced displacement of the community of Las Pavas. The lawyer of the community went to confer with the prosecutor. The prosecutor failed to provide her any information about the case and did not allow her to see the files of the investigation. The prosecutor asked about the social situation of the community and the aid offered by NGOs and state institutions. Importantly, the prosecutor did not try to gather evidence suggested by the lawyer of the community in that meeting. In November 2011, the prosecutor decided to close the case. Justifying this decision, she argued that the narrative of the victims was false, and thus, this case was a fraud orchestrated by the community of “Las Pavas” and local, national, and international NGOs. The prosecutor also stated that some of the community leaders were guerrillas. The prosecutor concluded that victims and their supporters must be criminally investigated (Prosecutor V. General Attorney’s Office - National Unit against Forced Displacement. Decision 11/11/11. NUC 130016001128200912518).
It is important to mention that, in 2004, various lawyers denounced that this prosecutor had links with paramilitaries (http://lasillavacia.com/historia/los-sonados-casos-de-la-fiscal-que-no-les-creyo-los-campesinos-de-las-pavas-30278).
- 62.
The Intercongregational Commission of Justice and Peace provides legal aid to families of community leaders or activists in land restitution processes who were killed. According to the NGO, they were killed because of their human rights work. In contrast, the Attorney General’s Office has opened criminal investigations based on other motives such as personal relationships (Gualberto Hoyos), failure to pay a debt (Manuel Ruiz), putting resistance to a robbery (Oscar Mausa), and crime of passion (Ana Fabricia Córdoba).
Interview with Manuel Garzón, Intercongregational Commission of Justice and Peace, July 14, 2014.
- 63.
Reyes suggests some practical issues of the Court’s decision of allowing victims to request evidence and excluding them from cross-examination of witnesses such as: who cross-examine the witnesses requested by victims, when victims must discover the evidence, and what if the evidence requested by the victims affect the prosecutor’s case theory. Given these issues, he maintains that the Court ignored the close relationship between evidence and case theory (Reyes Alvarado 2007).
- 64.
Langer (2014) argues that in the use of adversarial and inquisitorial as normative models, it is crucial to distinguish between form and substance.
The adversarial and inquisitorial systems are two ways to implement the principles and goals of the criminal process, but they should not be confounded with them. Instead of starting asking whether the adversarial or inquisitorial systems are normatively superior to one another, we should start asking which should be the principles and goals of the criminal process and then discuss what would be the best way to implement them (Langer 2014, p. 911).
- 65.
Constitutional Court, judgment C-343 of 2007, Justice Rodrigo Escobar; C-260 of 2011, Justice Jorge Iván Palacio.
- 66.
Articles 11 lit. d) and h), 136 num. 11, 137 num. 4, 340, 348, and 350 of the 2004 CPC.
- 67.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-516 of 2007, Justice Jaime Córdoba.
- 68.
IACtHR, Case Moiwana Village V. Suriname, Judgment of June 15, 2005, par. 147.
The Constitutional Court also cited the following opinions of the Inter-American Court: IACtHR, Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005, par. 147; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004, par. 186; and Case of Las Palmeras. Judgment of December 6, 2001, par. 76.
- 69.
Regarding transitional justice legislation, the Constitutional Court invoked this precedent on a broad definition of victim in the opinion of the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of “Justice and Peace Law” (Law 975). Article 5 of this law limited the definition of victims primarily to direct victims. If the direct victim was killed or disappeared, this rule considered victims his or her spouse, permanent partner, or first-degree relatives. In other words, the “Justice and Peace Law,” restricted the condition of victims based on the type of offense and the degree of kinship. On the contrary, the Court argued that direct victims and their relatives (any degree) who demonstrate an actual, concrete and specific damage could intervene in transitional justice criminal proceedings. Thus, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the limited definition of victim in Justice and Peace Law. (Constitutional Court, judgment C-370 of 2006, Justices Manuel José Cepeda, Jaime Córdoba, Rodrigo Escobar, Marco Gerardo Monroy, Álvaro Tafur, and Clara Inés Vargas wrote the majority opinion).
Usually, one or two justices write majority opinions. Five Justices wrote this opinion, which is very unusual. Justices Jaime Araújo, Alfredo Beltrán, and Humberto Sierra wrote dissenting opinions.
http://english.corteconstitucional.gov.co/sentences/C-370-2006.pdf.
- 70.
Interview with Nilson Pinilla Pinilla, Justice of the Constitutional Court (2006–2014), August 8, 2014.
- 71.
The realist arguments criticize the assumption that trials will be able to deal with massive and systematic human rights violations. These arguments highlight that many transitional regimes lack power, institutional capacity, popular support, and mechanisms to prosecute effectively. Also, some realist approaches suggest that amnesties are necessary to ensure political transitions (Aukerman 2002, pp. 39, 40).
- 72.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-578 of 2002, Justice Manuel José Cepeda.
- 73.
From 1820 to 2004, the Colombian state approved 63 indults and 25 amnesties, involving grave human rights violations, to facilitate peace agreements (Bushnell 1997; Pécaut 2006). In Colombia, during the 18th and 19th centuries the concerns for peace were stronger than for justice, so the practice of granting clemency was the norm and atrocious crimes were never punished (Uprimny and Saffon 2006, p. 10).
- 74.
IACommHR, Follow-up on the demobilization process of the AUC in Colombia, 2007, par. 7.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report on the human rights situation in Colombia, 2004.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report on the human rights situation in Colombia, February 28, 2005.
Comisión Colombiana de Juristas, Anotaciones sobre la Ley de Justicia y Paz. Una Mirada desde las Víctimas, March of 2007 http://www.coljuristas.org/documentos/libros_e_informes/anotaciones_sobre_la_ley_de_justicia_y_paz.pdf.
- 75.
Constitutional Court, judgment C-370 of 2006, Justices Manuel José Cepeda, Jaime Córdoba, Rodrigo Escobar, Marco Gerardo Monroy, Álvaro Tafur, and Clara Inés Vargas wrote the majority opinion. Usually, one or two justices write majority opinions. Five Justices wrote this opinion, which is very unusual. Justices Jaime Araújo, Alfredo Beltrán, and Humberto Sierra wrote dissenting opinions.
http://english.corteconstitucional.gov.co/sentences/C-370-2006.pdf.
- 76.
“6. The reparation of victims is mainly a responsibility of the offenders. These criminals must respond with their assets, both legal as illegally obtained. Moreover, while human rights violations are carried out by illegal groups, i.e. organized criminal structures, responsibility for the repair is jointly and severally liable among its members. The State also has responsibility for the reparation of victims, but in a subsidiary and competing with those responsible. State responsibility can not be limited to budget availability.”
(Constitutional Court, Judgment C-370 of 2006. In: http://english.corteconstitucional.gov.co/sentences/C-370-2006.pdf).
- 77.
“4. Victims should have the sufficient and appropriate legal remedies to participate in the various stages in the investigation, prosecution and punishment of the offenders. These resources include legal assistance by the State. Furthermore, these procedures must be issued within a reasonable time, sufficient to adequately investigate the behavior, and prompt in order to satisfy the rights of victims.”
(Constitutional Court, Judgment C-370 of 2006. In: http://english.corteconstitucional.gov.co/sentences/C-370-2006.pdf).
- 78.
“3. The right of the victims to know the truth means that the responsible declare, freely and voluntarily, the facts relating to all crimes he committed as a member of illegal armed group. The omission or concealment of crimes should result in the inability to give the benefit of the alternative penalty. This is because such actions are clearly contrary to the protection of the rights of victims and reconstruction of historical truth and memory. The satisfaction of the right to the truth means, in the same way, that the rules for granting benefits not discriminate against certain crimes. Thus, the rule that the grant of benefits to the release kidnapped people, should also extend to the information on the whereabouts of forced missed persons.”
(Constitutional Court, Sentence C-370 of 2006. In: http://english.corteconstitucional.gov.co/sentences/C-370-2006.pdf).
- 79.
Constitutional Court, judgment C-370 of 2006, Justices Manuel José Cepeda, Jaime Córdoba, Rodrigo Escobar, Marco Gerardo Monroy, Álvaro Tafur, and Clara Inés Vargas.
- 80.
By December of 2012, the Government had nominated 4,714 individuals to participate in the Justice and Peace process, while 103 were excluded from it. Those individuals confessed 39,546 crimes. Prosecutors brought charges against 628 individuals and charges had been confirmed for 128 individuals. 14 individuals have been convicted and sentenced under Justice and Peace Law, 7 of whom were leaders or commanders of paramilitary groups (http://www.fiscalia.gov.co:8080/).
- 81.
Centro Internacional de Toledo para la Paz—Observatorio Internacional de la Ley de Justicia y Paz, Cuarto Informe 2011; Tercer Informe 2010. In: http://www.toledopax.org/es/tipopublicacion/3/documentos-e-informes.
- 82.
According to the IACommHR,
Whenever the conduct of those who participate in the armed conflict results in the commission of crimes against humanity, war crimes and/or human rights violations the States have, in-keeping with customary international law and treaty law, the peremptory obligation to investigate the facts and prosecute and punish the persons responsible. These are imprescriptible crimes of international law, not subject to amnesty, which, as they have not been duly clarified, may give rise to the international responsibility of the State and open the door to universal jurisdiction to establish the individual criminal liability of the persons involved. Whenever amnesty laws or similar legislative measures render ineffective and meaningless the obligation of the States party to ensure judicial clarification of the facts of crimes of international law, they are incompatible with the American Convention, independent of whether the violations in question may be attributed to State agents or private persons (IACommHR, Follow-up on the demobilization process of the AUC in Colombia, 2007, par 6).
- 83.
According to the Attorney General, the prioritization meets international law standards because of the following reasons. First, the IACtHR rejects the generalized impunity caused by amnesties, but case prioritization is very different from amnesties. Case prioritization seeks to investigate and punish the grossest violations of human rights. Second, the obligation aut dedere aut judicare within international humanitarian law prohibits general amnesties, but allows transitional justice mechanisms when serious violations of IHL are investigated. Third, international criminal tribunals have applied case prioritization strategies. In addition, a transitional justice program that establishes the investigation and punishment of the most responsible individuals and amnesties for lower level perpetrators is compatible with the ICC regime (Attorney General’s Office, Directive 001 of 2012, pp. 3–13).
- 84.
Article 1, Legislative Act 01 of 2012 (Legal Framework for Peace):
(…) Both prioritization and selection criteria are inherent in the instruments of transitional justice. The Prosecutor General of Colombia will determine criteria for the prioritization of prosecutions. Without prejudice to the general duty of the State to investigate and punish serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, in the framework of transitional justice, the Congress of the Republic, at the initiative of the National Government, may, by means of a special law regulating constitutional rights [ley estatutaria], determine selection criteria that facilitate the concentration of efforts on the criminal investigation of those most responsible for all crimes committed systematically and alleged to be crimes against humanity, genocide, or war crimes; ascertain the cases, requirements, and conditions under which it would be appropriate to suspend execution of the sentence; ascertain the cases in which it is appropriate to impose extrajudicial penalties, alternative sentences, or special forms of execution and completion of the sentence; and authorize the conditional waiver of prosecution of all of the cases not selected. The special law will take account of the seriousness and representative nature of the cases in order to determine the selection criteria.
- 85.
- 86.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-579 of 2013, Justice Jorge Ignacio Pretelt.
- 87.
OTP, Interim Report, Situation in Colombia, November 2012, par. 205.
- 88.
IACtHR, Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, Judgment of October 25 of 2012, Concurring opinion of Judge Sergio Garcia-Sayan, par. 37, 38.
37. A negotiated solution to the internal armed conflict raises several issues regarding the weighing of these rights, within the legitimate discussion on the need to conclude the conflict and put an end to future serious human rights violations. States have a legal obligation to address the rights of the victims and, with the same intensity, the obligation to prevent further acts of violence and to achieve peace in an armed conflict by the means at its disposal. Peace as a product of a negotiation is offered as a morally and politically superior alternative to peace as a result of the annihilation of the opponent. Therefore, international human rights law should consider that peace is a right and that the State must achieve it.
38. Thus, in certain transitional situations between armed conflicts and peace, it can happen that a State is not in a position to implement fully and simultaneously, the various international rights and obligations it has assumed. In these circumstances, taking into consideration that none of those rights and obligations is of an absolute nature, it is legitimate that they be weighed in such a way that the satisfaction of some does not affect the exercise of the others disproportionately. Thus, the degree of justice that can be achieved is not an isolated component from which legitimate frustrations and dissatisfactions can arise, but part of an ambitious process of transition towards mutual tolerance and peace.
- 89.
“La aplicación estricta de la justicia puede ser un impedimento para la paz”, El País, April 28, 2013. In: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/04/28/actualidad/1367174156_693511.html.
- 90.
For more information on Small Claims Law, see, Proyecto de Ley 88 de 2006, Senado. Gaceta del Congreso 307 de 2006.
Regarding the Constitutional Amendment, see, Proyecto de Acto Legislativo 216 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 206 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 226 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 249 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en el Senado al Proyecto de Acto Legislativo 20 de 2011 Senado, 216 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 336 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en el Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 394 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 598 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 661 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en el Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 808 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en el Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 844 de 2011.
- 91.
Small Claims Law: Proyecto de Ley 88 de 2006, Senado. Gaceta del Congreso 307 de 2006.
From 2005, the accusatorial criminal justice system had managed 77,006 negligent or intentional minor injuries to persons, 51,145 petty thefts, 4979 minor frauds, 9447 minor damages to property, among others.
Constitutional Amendment: Proyecto de Acto Legislativo 216 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 206 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 226 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 249 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en el Senado al Proyecto de Acto Legislativo 20 de 2011 Senado, 216 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 336 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en el Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 394 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 598 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 661 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en el Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 808 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en el Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 844 de 2011.
- 92.
Proyecto de Acto Legislativo 216 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 206 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 226 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 249 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en el Senado al Proyecto de Acto Legislativo 20 de 2011 Senado, 216 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 336 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en el Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 394 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 598 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 661 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Primer Debate en el Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 808 de 2011; Informe de Ponencia para Segundo Debate en el Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 844 de 2011.
- 93.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-879 of 2008, Justice Manuel José Cepeda.
- 94.
Fiscalía General de la Nación, Informe Audiencia Pública Rendición de cuentas 2009–2010,
p. 5. (http://fgn.fiscalia.gov.co:8080/Fiscalia/archivos/RendiciondeCuentas/audienciapublica2010.pdf).
- 95.
Carlos Arturo Correa Mojica (Party of the U), Gustavo Hernán Puentes Díaz (Conservative Party), Camilo Andrés Abril Jaimes (Radical Change Party), Miguel Gómez Martínez (Party of the U), Carlos Germán Navas Talero (Alternative Democratic Pole), Hernando Alfonso Prada Gil (Green Party), Rubén Darío Rodríguez Góngora (Liberal Party), Juan Carlos Salazar Uribe (Citizen Option Party), Germán Varón Cotrino (Radical Change Party), Jorge Enrique Rozo Rodríguez (Radical Change Party).
- 96.
Proyecto de Acto Legislativo 216 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 206 de 2011.
This amendment project quoted a research of Corporation for Excellence in Justice that reported that 2,129,990 cases were at the preliminary inquiry stage (Corporación Excelencia en la Justicia 2010).
- 97.
Proyecto de Acto Legislativo 216 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 206 de 2011.
- 98.
Congress stated that the German and Chilean models inspired this project of constitutional amendment (Proyecto de Acto Legislativo 216 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 206 de 2011).
- 99.
Acta de Plenaria Senado 21, Noviembre 22 de 2011. Gaceta 1018 de 2011.
- 100.
House of Lords, Jones v. Whalley [2006] UKHL 41.
- 101.
In March 2013, the Minister of Justice created a Commission of Experts to draft a bill about private prosecution. This Commission, however, has not published any results.
Also, some Congressmen have presented two bills to regulate private prosecution, but these were shelved because they were not processed timely. In March 2012, Congressmen Germán Navas Talero (Alternative Democratic Pole), Alfonso Prada Gil (Green Party), and Guillermo Rivero (Liberal Party) submitted a bill (Proyecto de Ley 209/2012 Cámara). In July 2012, Congressmen Germán Navas Talero (Alternative Democratic Pole), Alfonso Prada Gil (Green Party), Guillermo Rivero (Liberal Party), and Hugo Orlando Velásquez (Liberal Party) presented another bill (Proyecto de Ley 047/2012 Cámara).
- 102.
Some scholars argue that the promoters of the criminal justice reforms in Latin America contributed to the idea of collapse of those reforms, as they proposed unreachable goals and created excessive expectations (Popkin 2007, p. 179).
- 103.
Report of the Special Rapportuer on the Independence of judges and lawyers, Ms. Gabriela Carina Knaul de Albuquerque e Silva, Addendum Mission to Colombia, A/HRC/14/26/Add.2, April 16 2010, pp. 259–260.
- 104.
Percentages of pretrial detainees for total prisoner population:
Argentina (prov. Buenos Aires) 66% in 1993, Brazil 13% in 1994, Colombia 49% in 1995, Costa Rica 28% in 1995, Chile 59% in 1993, Ecuador 67% in 1995, El Salvador 77% in 1993, Honduras 90% in 1995, Nicaragua 43% in 1995, Panama 79% in 1995, Peru 67% in 1993, Paraguay 85% in 1995, and Dominican Republic 90% in 1995 (Carranza 1996, p. 82).
- 105.
Report of the Special Rapportuer on the Independence of judges and lawyers, Ms. Gabriela Carina Knaul de Albuquerque e Silva, Addendum Mission to Colombia, A/HRC/14/26/Add.2, April 16 2010, pp. 259–260.
- 106.
See, e.g., the results of a survey in Bogotá (Encuesta Bienal de Culturas en Bogotá de 2009).
Question: In Colombia, the problem of the justice is that policemen arrest offenders and judges release them.
Strongly agree: 21,7%
Agree: 57, 4%.
- 107.
La Patria, October 10, 2006. “Fiscalía revisará funcionamiento de la detención domiciliaria.”
La Patria, April 30, 2007. “Asesinó y lo capturaron, pero la justicia lo dejó libre.”
- 108.
In some criminal justice systems, guilty pleas and plea-bargaining are considered relevant devices to dispose of a high proportion of criminal cases using less institutional resources. In those systems, it is claimed that a significant increase in the number of criminal prosecutions going to trial would generate the collapse of the criminal justice system (Packer 1964, pp. 47, 672; Roach 1999).
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has said “[d]isposition of charges after plea discussions is not only an essential part of the [criminal] process but a highly desirable part for many reasons” (Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261, 1971).
- 109.
Exposición de Motivos, Proyecto de Ley 23 de 2006 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 250 de 2006.
In 2006, Sabas Pretelt (Minister of Internal Affairs and Justice) y Mario Iguarán (Attorney General) submitted to Congress a bill to prevent and repress crimes of high impact on social coexistence and citizen security. The statement of reasons of this bill comprised the following objectives:
-
Ensuring citizen security as a component of the Democratic Security Program of President Uribe. The explanation of measures related to citizen security focused on domestic violence and crimes against children and women. Those offenses were considered particularly serious because the “extreme vulnerability” of the victims.
-
Amending the regime on defendant’s freedom of Law 906 and taking measures to prevent and repress conducts that affects citizen security and coexistence (e.g. robbery). The decisions of preliminary hearing judges (jueces de control de garantías) that protect the freedom of offenders after their arrest affect citizen security and public confidence in the criminal justice system.
-
Adjusting the adversarial criminal justice system of Law 906 to achieve efficiency and meet the Sate constitutional purposes (e.g. ensuring peaceful coexistence and fair social and political order, and protecting the life, dignity, property and rights of all). The proposed measures were designed to deal with the backlog of cases in the system and protect victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparation.
-
- 110.
Acta de la Plenaria del Senado 60, May 22 of 2007. Gaceta del Congreso 331 of 2007.
- 111.
For example, human trafficking; domestic violence; robbery; aggravated fraud; fabrication, possession or trafficking of weapons for self-defense related to conspiracy; possession, fabrication or trafficking of military weapons; corruption.
- 112.
For example, domestic violence, threatens, weapon possession, and election offenses.
- 113.
El Tiempo, January 24, 2008. “Dejan libre al 'rey del paseo millonario' por error de procedimiento.” http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-3932157
CM&, April 5, 2009. “Sistema Penal Acusatorio es garantista y por eso genera impunidad y congestión: Holguín Sardi.”
El Espectador, September 21, 2010, “Dejan en libertad a 26 de los involucrados en tráfico de armas para las Farc.” http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/judicial/dejan-libertad-26-de-los-involucrados-trafico-de-armas-articulo-225492.
- 114.
Noticias Uno, June 26, 2010, “Habla juez que dejó en libertad a alias Pantera.” http://noticiasunolaredindependiente.com/2010/06/26/noticias/habla-juez-que-dej-en-libertad-a-alias-pantera/.
- 115.
Minuto 30, September 7, 2010, General Oscar Naranjo: “El Sistema Penal Acusatorio logró incrementar la inseguridad.” http://www.minuto30.com/general-oscar-naranjo-el-sistema-penal-acusatorio-logro-incrementar-la-inseguridad/14608/.
- 116.
El Espectador, February 9, 2011. “Tan solo 170 personas fueron conducidas a la cárcel.” http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/bogota/articulo-249841-de-1070-capturados-ultima-semana-bogota-893-quedaron-libres
El País, April 17, 2011. “El 71% de los que capturamos están en libertad”, dice Bojacá http://www.elpais.com.co/elpais/judicial/71-capturamos-estan-en-libertad-dice-bojaca
El Heraldo, April 15, 2011. “De 1.640 capturados solo 159 están en cárceles” http://www.elheraldo.co/local/de-1640-capturados-solo-159-estan-en-carceles-17179.
- 117.
Proyecto de Ley 164 de 2010 Senado. Gaceta del Congreso 737 of 2010.
- 118.
Acta de la Plenaria del Senado 28, December 1 of 2010. Gaceta del Congreso 70 of 2011.
- 119.
Ponencia para Primer Debate al Proyecto de Ley 164 de 2010 Senado. Gaceta del Congreso 850 of 2010. Ponencia para Primer Debate al Proyecto de Ley 160 de 2010 Cámara, 164 de 2010 Senado. Gaceta del Congreso 43 of 2011.
- 120.
IACommHR, Report on the use of pretrial detention in the Americas, 2013.
For more information about other countries in Latin America that have enacted punitive backlashes against the criminal justice reforms that limited preventive detention, see, e.g. (Duce et al. 2009; Fuentes Maureira 2010).
- 121.
Exposición de Motivos, Proyecto de Ley 23 de 2006 Cámara, Gaceta del Congreso 250 de 2006.
- 122.
According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, legal reforms to increase the use of incarceration and pretrial detention in other countries in Latin America have been also reactive and part of a populist discourse (IACommHR, Report on the use of pretrial detention in the Americas, 2013, par. 80).
- 123.
According to Durlauf and Nagin, while there is little evidence of variation in the severity of punishment having a substantial deterrent effect, there is relatively strong evidence that indicates that variation in the certainty of punishment has a large deterrent effect (2011, p. 38).
- 124.
In the Demography and Health Survey of 2005, women reported that they are victims of different forms of intimate violence: verbal (26.3%), physical (39%), sexual (11.5%), and imposition of mechanisms of control (65.7%).
- 125.
(Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, 2004–2008)
Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2001/49. Addendum Mission to Colombia. Document E/CN.4/2002/83/Add.3, par. 30.
- 126.
The global feminist movement succeeded in introducing the idea of VAW as violations of human rights (Merry, 2006). During the 1980s and 1990s, women’s movements used international conferences to establish the right to protection from violence as a central dimension of the human rights of women. In 1985, the UN's Third World Conference on Women in Nairobi suggested that VAW is a human rights concern. Moreover, in 1992 the General Recommendation 19 of the CEDAW Committee indicated that VAW is a form of discrimination that is prohibited by CEDAW.
The definition of VAW in international law includes private and public violence. For instance, at the regional level, the Belém do Pará Convention defines VAW as “any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere” (article 1). This definition takes into account the feminist opposition to the public-private distinction. Feminist theory has sharply criticized the public-private distinction since it has reinforced unequal relations of power between men and women (MacKinnon 1993; Bunch 1990). Central objectives of this critique are to contest male power and control, as well as identify domestic violence as a public issue (Fineman and Mykitiuk 1994). Feminists have struggled to extract domestic violence from the private sphere and recognize it as a crime ensuring state intervention and public redress (Fineman and Mykitiuk 1994).
- 127.
It is important to note that some CLS scholars have claimed that the human rights discourse may be considered as hegemonic perspective of social justice, which implicitly or explicitly delegitimizes or makes less available “other valuable, often more valuable, emancipatory strategies” (David Kennedy 2002a, p. 491).
- 128.
(Olsen 1984, p. 391).
- 129.
(Charlesworth, 1994, p. 61).
- 130.
Some of the women’s networks are: Red Nacional de Mujeres, Red de Educación Popular entre Mujeres de América Latina y el Caribe, Red de Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos, Red Mujer y Habitat, Ruta Pacífica de las Mujeres, Iniciativa de Mujeres Colombianas por la Paz, Liga de Mujeres Desplazadas (López Téllez 2009, pp. 62–84; Wills and Gómez 2006, p. 301).
The “Women and National Constituent Assembly Network” became the “National Women’s Network” (Red Nacional de Mujeres) in 1992. The main objective of this network has been advocating for women’s rights through the promotion of legislative reforms, the participation in institutional spaces, and the political mobilization (For more information see http://www.rednacionaldemujeres.org/es/).
Another relevant network of feminist and women’s organizations is the “Women’s Pacific Route” (Ruta Pacífica de las Mujeres), which was created in 1996 to support women victims of armed conflict in a violent region of the country (Urabá). This network is based on a feminist and non-violent perspective; its objective is promoting social transformations, in the public and private spheres, to build peace and social justice in the country (See http://www.rutapacifica.org.co/home.html).
It is relevant to mention the political and ideological tensions between these two networks. The “Women’s Pacific Route” and the NGO Casa de la Mujer have a critical perspective towards the state and the government, particularly towards President Uribe (2002–2010) because of his repressive security agenda. Thus, those organizations suggest that the orientation of the “National Women’s Network” is very institutional, conciliatory, and pro-state (López Téllez 2009, pp. 69–78, 128–129).
- 131.
The Constitutional Court has recognized various rights for women victims of sexual violence within criminal proceedings: (i) right to access to effective judicial remedies to ensure the rights to truth, justice and reparation; (ii) right to present their opinions and concerns and the right to be heard, and to be informed of decisions that affect their rights; (iii) right to be treated with respect and compassion in the judicial proceeding, so state representatives should adopt measures to avoid revictimization; (iv) right to be protected from coercion, violence or intimidation; (v) right to the investigation explore the context of the conduct and exclude prejudice against the victim; (vi) right to state representatives take measures to prevent unnecessary interferences with victim’s privacy; (vii) right to the consent cannot be inferred based on the lack of physical resistance or other negative response; ix) right to a serious and objective criminal investigation to find truth and justice (Constitutional Court. Judgment T-453 of 2005).
The Constitutional Court has also incorporated some international law rules of evidence in cases of sexual violence, such as the exclusion of evidence collected due to an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with the victim’s privacy (See, ICTY Statute, ICTR Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of International Criminal Court, and Rule 70 of ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence). Notably, in order to protect all women victims of rape, the Court has extended the application of these international criminal law provisions to cases under domestic criminal law that do not constitute violations of international criminal law (Judgments T-453 of 2005 and T-458 of 2007).
Additionally, the Court requires the Government to adopt public policies to deal with forced displacement (Judgment T-025 of 2004). In particular, the Court points out that those public policies must include affirmative actions to protect and assist women victims of forced displacement (Auto 092 of 2008).
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has asked the Government to develop public policy programs with specific measures to protect women victims of violence within the armed conflict (Judgment T-496 of 2008). In this judgment, the Court decided multiple judicial remedies (acciones de tutela) that seek the protection of the rights of women victims of systematic and widespread violence in the armed conflict. Many victims and women’s organizations (e.g. Iniciativa de Mujeres por la Paz) brought those claims.
- 132.
Merry (2009) explains that women’s activists around the world have encouraged a similar approach to criminalizing gender violence.
- 133.
IACtHR, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Judgment of November 16, 2009, par. 400.
- 134.
IACommHR, Access to justice for women victims of violence in the Americas, 2007, par. 2, 32. IACommHR, Merits, Report Nº 80/11, Case 12.626, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al. (United States), July 21 of 2011, par. 111, 127, 129.
- 135.
Some state representatives participated permanently in the worktable (“Oficina Asesora para la Política Pública de Mujer y Géneros—Alcaldía de Bogotá”, the “Delegada para los Derechos de la Niñez, la Juventud y las Mujeres” and the “Delegada para Asuntos Constitucionales” of Defensoría del Pueblo). The Technical Secretariat was the Defensoría del Pueblo.
The worktable created a technical team to draft the project of the law that comprised the following actors:
Networks of women’s organizations: Ruta Pacífica de las Mujeres (Marina Gallego) and Red Nacional de Mujeres (Beatriz Quintero).
Social organizations at the national level: Casa de la Mujer (María Eugenia Sánchez), Sisma Mujer (Claudia Ramírez), Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (Iris Marín), and ILSA - Instituto de Servicios Legales Alternativos (María Eugenia Ramírez)
Social organizations at the local level: Fundein (Virginia Parra) and Fundación Diálogo Mujer (Sara Gómez)
Academia: Florence Thomas (Mujer y Sociedad – Universidad Nacional de Colombia).
- 136.
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), and International Organization for Migration (IOM).
- 137.
This analysis is similar to Kelly’s description of the feminist control over the issue of domestic violence. She claims that female violence is denied, defended and minimized. Additionally, she argued that legal programs and social norms fail to deal with male abuse by women and to protect male victims (Kelly 2003).
- 138.
Proyecto de Ley Número 171 de 2006, Senado. “Por la cual se dictan normas para prevenir, erradicar y sancionar toda forma de violencia contra las mujeres, se reforman los Códigos Penal, de Procedimiento Penal, la Ley 294 de 1996 y se dictan otras disposiciones.”.
- 139.
Parody, Gina. Informe de ponencia para segundo debate al Proyecto de Ley Número 171 de 2006 Senado “por el cual se dictan normas para prevenir, erradicar y sancionar toda forma de violencia contra las mujeres, se reforman los Códigos Penal, de Procedimiento Penal, la Ley 294 de 1996 y se dictan otras disposiciones”, April 11 of 2007.
- 140.
Criminalization of domestic violence as a serious offense has been one of the goals of the global feminist movement (Merry 2009). In fact, some scholars and advocates of battered women’s rights have framed domestic abuse in terms of well-recognized gross crimes. For instance, some commentators and the Special Rapporteur on VAW claim that grave domestic violence may constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (Copelon 1994; MacKinnon 1993). Similarly, Marcus (1994) argues that woman battering is a form of terrorism at home.
In addition, advocates of battered women’s rights have demanded that state representatives take domestic violence seriously. They have claimed more active prosecution and punishment of such violence (Merry 2009, pp. 50, 51). Thus, they have promoted harsh measures of crime control such as mandatory arrest, mandatory prosecution, higher sentences, and incarceration (Wills 1996, p. 173; Dempsey 2009, p. 222).
- 141.
Exposición de Motivos, Proyecto de Ley 23 de 2006, Cámara. Gaceta del Congreso 250 de 2006.
Proyecto de Ley Número 171 de 2006, Senado. “Por la cual se dictan normas para prevenir, erradicar y sancionar toda forma de violencia contra las mujeres, se reforman los Códigos Penal, de Procedimiento Penal, la Ley 294 de 1996 y se dictan otras disposiciones.”.
- 142.
See, for example, (Báez et al. 2008).
Exposición de Motivos, Proyecto de Ley 23 de 2006, Cámara. Gaceta del Congreso 250 de 2006.
- 143.
Acta de la Plenaria del Senado 60, May 22 of 2007. Gaceta del Congreso 331 of 2007.
- 144.
Exposición de Motivos, Proyecto de Ley 23 de 2006, Cámara. Gaceta del Congreso 250 de 2006.
- 145.
Acta de la Plenaria del Senado 60, May 22 of 2007. Gaceta del Congreso 331 of 2007.
- 146.
Constitutional Court, Judgment C-1198 of 2008, Justice Nilson Pinilla.
- 147.
Ponencia para primer debate al proyecto de ley 164 de 2010 Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 850 of 2010. Texto aprobado en plenaria, Proyecto de ley 164 de 2010 Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 1117 of 2010. Acta de Plenaria Senado 28, December 1 of 2010, Gaceta 70 of 2011. Acta de Plenaria Cámara 66, May 30 of 2011, Gaceta 669 of 2011.
- 148.
Exposición de Motivos, Proyecto de ley 164 de 2011 Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 853 de 2011.
- 149.
Ponencia para segundo debate al proyecto de ley 227 de 2012 Cámara—proyecto de ley 164 de 2011 Senado, Gaceta del Congreso 305 of 2012.
- 150.
“Among the dangers and threats that have been troubling for the IACHR is the fact that various judicial bodies are encouraging the use of conciliation during the investigative process, as one means of solving crimes of violence against women, especially in cases of domestic violence. Yet it is internationally recognized that conciliation and mediation are inadvisable in such cases.” IACommHR, Access to justice for women victims of violence in the Americas, 2007, par. 161.
- 151.
Follow-up Mechanism of Convention of Belém do Pará (MESECVI), Second Conference of the State Parties, Colombia-Country Report, June 23, 2008.
- 152.
In the U.S., the battered women’s movement has promoted policies to achieve a more active prosecution such as mandatory prosecution. They emphasize that domestic violence is a public crime or a violation of human rights, so the state has an obligation to aggressively prosecute and punish such criminal offenses. There are conflicting approaches to the mandatory prosecution for domestic violence cases.
On one hand, some scholars and practitioners argue that this policy is the appropriate response to domestic violence (Wills 1996, p. 173; Dempsey 2009, p. 222). Siegel (1996) argues that mandatory prosecution communicates the message that the state will not tolerate such violence. In order to make effective mandatory prosecution strategies, some scholars recommend the implementation of mandated participation of victims, even if it may affect the autonomy of women. According to Hanna, “The societal benefits gained through this criminal justice response to domestic violence far outweigh any short-term costs to women’s autonomy and collective safety. Prosecutors can no longer avoid mandated participation if they are serious about improving the criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence” (Hanna 1996, p. 1857).
On the other hand, critics of mandatory prosecution highlight that this policy involves the transfer of power from the male members of the family to the state and prosecutors. As a result, the mandatory prosecution regime reduces victims’ agency and reinforces their dependency (Mills 1999; Suk 2006).
- 153.
For example, Olsen argues that a California specific statutory rape law to protect underage women reinforced stereotypes of women, and affected their sexual freedom (1984). Furthermore, Suk points out that the use of protection orders to prohibit the cohabitation and contact of intimate partners in cases of domestic violence generates a state-imposed de facto divorce. This measure eliminates the autonomy of the victim (2006).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sánchez-Mejía, A.L. (2017). Reactions to the Regulation on Victims of the 2004 CPC: Challenges, Adjustments, and Punitive Counterreforms. In: Victims’ Rights in Flux: Criminal Justice Reform in Colombia. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 62. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59852-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59852-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59851-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59852-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)