“Before he is extradited, Macaco should be tried in Colombia under ordinary jurisdiction and not through the Justice and Peace procedure,” the lawyer Alirio Uribe Muñoz, member of the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers’ Collective, asserted categorically when he responded to the criticism expressed by the national government concerning the writ for the protection of constitutional rights submitted by the National Victims’ Movement, related to the Regional Council of the Judicature’s order for the provisional suspension of the extradition procedure of Carlos Mario Jiménez, alias Macaco.

 

“Before he is extradited, Macaco should be tried in Colombia under ordinary jurisdiction and not through the Justice and Peace procedure,” the lawyer Alirio Uribe Muñoz, member of the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers’ Collective, asserted categorically when he responded to the criticism expressed by the national government concerning the writ for the protection of constitutional rights submitted by the National Victims’ Movement, related to the Regional Council of the Judicature’s order for the provisional suspension of the extradition procedure of Carlos Mario Jiménez, alias Macaco.

The principal argument wielded concerned the fact that the self-confessed paramilitary has not complied with the commitments in articles 10 and 11 of the so-called Law of Justice and Peace -in particular the obligation to cease all illicit activity- and instead has continued to commit crimes. Furthermore, article 72 of the same regulations provides that the benefits of the law may only be granted for acts occurring prior to the law coming into effect. Insofar as new criminal acts, it is understood they should be handled by ordinary jurisdiction. [1]

“What we want is that by being tried under ordinary jurisdiction, punishment corresponding to crimes against humanity will be imposed, which goes from between 25 to 60 years in jail,” Uribe Muñoz clarified. “And in this way so there is comprehensive reparation, which is what the victims want with the judicial decisions -as opposed to merely monetary reparation-, which is how the government wants it to appear with the issuing of the reparation decree, or the argument that in any case the paramilitaries will respond with their property.” None of the provisions satisfy the rights to truth and justice in which the same Law 975 is supposedly inspired. This is especially true when these administrative proposals are specifically directed to keeping the victims from demanding their rights before the justice system. [2]

Another matter raised by this lawyer concerns evident impunity generated by this process. “If the more than 35 thousand paramilitaries demobilized individually and collectively are now free. [3] And if of the 2,782 persons under review for the application of the law, only 55 are in jail and the government successively extradites them, the question is who going to answer to the victims for these crimes.” [4]

Endnotes:

 

 

 

Notas