The future of the “total peace” law, which allows the National Government to pursue peace approaches with dissidents and organizations such as the “Gulf clan” and other drug trafficking organizations, is in the hands of the Constitutional Court, which examines a case. against him.
This Monday andMagistrate Jorge Enrique Ibáñez dispersed the power project, which, as a matter of national urgency, was to be primarily reviewed by the General Assembly.
(Read: Prosecutor’s Office asks Constitutional Court to drop ‘total peace’ law)
As EL TIEMPO learned, the presentation aims to overthrow the entire Law No. 2272 of 2022, which reforms the Law on Public Order, por committing flaws in the Congress of the Republic because, among others, it did not have the concept of the Criminal Policy Council.
It should be noted that in this case, Judge Ibáñez had initially proposed to his colleagues in the General Assembly to temporarily suspend parts of the law. A lawsuit was filed on the grounds that they were unconstitutional.
This request was rejected in a decision that opened the door for the Court to issue, for the first time, an interim injunction on laws it had examined before the final decision. In the case of the 1991 Constitution and only those norms that are clearly unconstitutional.
(Read: Constitutional Court admits first case against ‘total peace’ law)
The presentation will be the first item on the agenda, above other ongoing processes, after the Court has approved the consideration of this case as a matter of national urgency. To be approved, the paper needs at least five of the nine possible votes.
The court is examining a case brought by Javier Pava Quiceno against Article 2 of the law in question, saying it would be possible to negotiate between them with the armed or organized high-impact criminal structures to which they conform.among others, “Former members of illegal armed groups who were demobilized through agreements with the Colombian State and contributed to their dissolution.”
(Read: First case against total peace comes to court)
The case also attacks the creation of a high-level body that would characterize these organizations and a clause that says “total peace” must include “peace with nature” and that the terms of surrender must be compromise with nature as a measure of compensation. .
In this case, the Attorney General’s Office made a request. Court that broke the rule by stating, among others, that there was no concept of the Criminal Policy Council.
“As comments on the impact of the proposed provisions on the criminal justice system were not submitted, the negotiations were not exemplified by the Criminal Policy Council concept, although some congressmen expressed concerns about the content of the initiative and demanded its suspension. Talks when they were relatives,” he said.
Likewise, the party said that the approved norms are unconstitutional because the expressions used when talking about criminal structures are too broad and unclear in content and may imply that the institutions to which they refer may benefit from transitional justice. Although they are not part of the armed conflict because they do not have a political status, they simply submit.
(Read: This was the Government’s turn before the Court on Opposition and full peace)
According to the Public Ministry, the law will allow negotiations with these groups to be conducted, creating similar treatment with other organizations, regardless of whether they have political status or not, as stated in the document. Account of the law Government He asked the prosecution to lift arrest warrants for members of the ‘Clan del Golfo’ and ‘Pachenca’, who now call themselves Colombia’s Gaitanista Self-Defense Forces.
“The uncertainty or ambiguity in question causes those fleeing peace agreements to take advantage of transitional justice because in the accused statements, illegal groups consisting of individuals who illegally integrate demobilized organizations are defined as organizational criminals. Provisional Article 66 of the Political Charter. unaware that it prevents the granting of a second incentive to those who do not fulfill their commitments, in order to guarantee the victims’ right not to repeat.
In this debate, the National Government presented two concepts to the Constitutional Court.
The first is the rule, announced on February 20 by EL TIEMPO, which says the rule only allows those fleeing a peace deal, like the pseudonym Iván Márquez, to surrender to justice.
(
justicia@eltiempo.com
@justiciaET
Source: Exame
