| |
|
Feature:
Wednesday July 20 2005
|
|
|
DONT LET COLOMBIAS
PARAMILITARIES OFF THE HOOK!
Human Rights Watch urges Blair
|
The British government should not support Colombias
new paramilitary demobilisation law, which Colombian President
Alvaro Uribe will promote when he meets with Tony Blair at
Downing Street this week, Human Rights Watch said Monday.
Uribe is about to sign a law that would let Colombias
paramilitaries off the hook for their terrorist acts,
warned José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director for Human
Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch said During his visit to Britain,
Uribe will present himself as a strong, effective leader in
the international fight against terrorism.
Relying on this image, and perhaps counting on British
sensitivities in the aftermath of the London bombings, he
will ask Britain to lend its political and financial support
for his own counter-terrorism policies.
But Britain should tread carefully.
José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director for Human Rights
Watch added: The British government should urge Uribe
to scrap this law and replace it with one that allows for
a genuine demobilisation of these groups.
Like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Colombias
right wing paramilitaries are considered terrorist groups
by Britain, the European Union and the United States.
Human Rights Watch said: Financed through drug trafficking,
paramilitaries have arbitrarily executed and forced the disappearances
of thousands of civilians.
Paramilitary leaders have illegally accumulated immense
wealth, and their mafia-like organisations exert political
control over various sectors of Colombia.
Prior to the approval of the demobilisation bill, Human
Rights Watch representatives met with President Uribe to discuss
their concerns with the law.
The European Union stated that its support for the demobilisation
process would depend on the laws compliance with international
standards on truth and justice.
The United Nations and several US senators, Democrats
and Republicans alike, expressed similar misgivings.
Nevertheless, the Colombian government disregarded these
concerns in drafting the law.
The law provides enormous sentence reductions to those
responsible for the most heinous atrocities ever committed
in Colombia.
Likewise, it does not include effective mechanisms,
such as full and truthful confessions, in order to fully dismantle
paramilitaries criminal networks.
In recent days, senior Colombian officials have argued
that the critics of the law are poorly informed.
They claim, for example, that the law provides for confessions.
This is untrue: the law states that paramilitaries shall
render a free version a spontaneous declaration
in which the defendant has no obligation to disclose the truth.
In order to receive sentence reductions, they only need
to accept the charges that are brought against
them within the next 36 hours without confessing anything.
Officials in Colombia have said that the law does not
promote impunity because it does not provide for a complete
amnesty.
This is true only in theory: in practice, the law will
result in widespread impunity because it imposes drastic limits
on the timeframe for investigations of paramilitaries
crimes, and fails to require their cooperation.
These officials have also said that paramilitaries will
be required to turn over their illegally acquired assets.
The law states that illegal assets must be turned over,
but it fails to provide incentives or sanctions to ensure
that they are actually forfeited.
If it is later discovered that paramilitaries had concealed
their illegal fortunes, their sentence reductions cannot be
revoked.
Even if many paramilitaries turn over weapons, given
their almost limitless financial resources, it will be easy
for commanders to recruit new combatants.
Even if they are convicted, paramilitary leaders will
be able to fulfil their sentences in little more than two
years.
They will then be free with their criminal records clean
and their wealth, power and criminal organisations intact.
Human Rights Watch director Vivanco said: Britain should
not lend its support to a process that will only help bolster
the power of these terrorist organisations.
Nor should the British government become an accomplice
to a process that undermines human rights and the already
weak rule of law in Colombia.
Human Rights Watch last June 15, raised concerns when the
draft bill was first debated in the Colombian Congress, saying
it would leave the underlying structures of those groups intact.
Vivanco warned then: The current bill does little but
serve the interests of paramilitary leaders: it doesnt
touch their mafia-like networks or the wealth that fuels their
groups activities.
He added: It is a bad deal both for Colombians and the
international community, and it sets a disastrous precedent
for future negotiations with other armed groups.
In response to requests from US senators, Uribe pledged to
introduce amendments to the draft bill but did not make them
public.
Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the amendments might
be only superficial changes that fail to address the bills
serious problems.
The organisation called on the Colombian Congress to make
five essential changes to the bill:
First, entirely eliminate provisions that (1) force
prosecutors to bring all charges within 24 hours after receiving
statements from demobilised individuals.
And (2) limit the time for investigation to 30 days after
charges are brought. Such limitations in the time for investigation
will virtually guarantee impunity, as most cases will either
be closed or will result in acquittals.
Second, in exchange for sentence reductions, paramilitary
commanders should be required to give a full and truthful
confession and to fully disclose their knowledge of their
groups operational structure, sources of financing and
illegally acquired assets.
Otherwise, it will be practically impossible for the government
to obtain the necessary information to uncover the truth about
atrocities and dismantle these groups.
l Third, the bill should provide that paramilitaries will
lose all their sentencing benefits if they are found to have
lied to the authorities about their crimes, operations and
finances, or to have kept illegally acquired assets.
This provision is necessary to ensure that the requirements
of turnover of assets, confession and disclosure of information
are meaningful.
Fourth, top paramilitary commanders should be barred
from receiving sentencing benefits through individual
demobilisation until the troops they command fully demobilise
and cease engaging in atrocities. This provision is essential
to ensure the credibility of the process.
Fifth, the time paramilitary leaders have spent negotiating
should not be considered as time served on their sentences.
|