You are on page 1of 9

Colombia:  The  Justice  Accord:  An  end  to  impunity?


Gearóid  Ó  Loingsigh  
The   accord   dealing   with   justice   signed   by   the   FARC   and   the   Colombian   government,  
last   September   23rd   was   announced   amidst   great   fanfare.     Just   like   the   other   accords,  
great   joy   broke   out   amongst   the   NGOs,   the   government   and   a   part   of   the   press   and   so  
called   intellectuals.     They   had   completely   forgotten   that   the   FARC   had   said   in   a  
communiqué   issued   in   2014   that   they   would   not   bow   down   to   justice.     But   just   like  
everything   said   by   insurgent   organizations   in   various   parts   of   the   world,   what   they  
say   they   won’t   do   is   the   clearest   indication   of   what   they   are   thinking   of   doing.     So,   we  
have  an  agreement  on  justice.  
Is   the   optimism,   joy   and   hope   really   justified?     And   if   they   are,   what   do   they   mean?    
When   the   FARC   signed   the   other   agreements   on   the   agrarian   question,   drugs   and  
political   participation   we   had   to   put   up   with   the   declarations   of   NGOs   and   so   called  
intellectuals,   not   only   announcing   the   coming   end   of   the   conflict   but   the  
transformation   of   the   country.     When   the   three   accords   were   finally   published   we  
could   see   how   wrong,   or   better   still,   how   cynical   they   were.     The   Agrarian   Accord   is   a  
pathetic  document,  bereft  of  content  which  not  only  does  not  agree  to  a  minimal  land  
reform,  but  it  dismisses  it  and  focuses  on  the  land  of  the  drug  barons  and  not  the  land  
belonging   to   the   oligarchy,   which   the   FARC   rose   up   against   so   many   years   ago.    
Moreover,   it   says   nothing   that   does   not   already   exist   in   the   current   Colombian  
legislation.    As  Senator  Claudia  López  pointed  out  at  the  time:  
It  is  very  important  that  the  agreements  with  the  FARC  have  been  published.    I  
can’t  see  anything  exotic  in  them,  on  the  contrary,  I  read  them  and  I  ask  myself:  
Was  it  for  this  that  we  have  been  killing  each  other  for  60  years,  for  this  we  have  
let  so  much  lead  fly,  for  this  there  are  six  million  victims?    For  this?  to  update  the  
land   registry,   to   agree   to   finance   rural   development,   guarantee   that   those   who  
take  part  in  politics  are  not  murdered?    This  makes  me  ashamed  of  my  country.    
The   great   revolution   of   the   FARC,   ends   up   in   demanding   that   the   laws   that   we  
already   have,   be   implemented.     I   feel   sorry   for   the   country,   for   the   victims.     Such  
a  killing  spree  for  such  basic  things.1  
She  is  quite  right.    Not  even  the  land  bank  is  new.    There  already  is  a  type  of  land  bank  
in  Colombia,  which  has  existed  since  the  1960s,  it  was  called  the  INCORA  (Colombian  
Institute   for   Agrarian   Reform)   now   known   as   the   INCODER   (Colombian   Institute   for  
Rural   Development).     It   doesn’t   work   very   well,   it   doesn’t   do   what   it   should,   but   it   is   a  
land  bank,  whether  we  like  it  or  not.    Of  course  this  bank  is  extremely  corrupt,  to  the  
point   that   instead   of   giving   land   to   peasants   it   gave   38,000   hectares   in   Vichada  
1  El   Espectador   (28/09/2014)   Me   duele   que   mi   mamá   se   angustie   por   mí,  
2  Cuellar  Solano,  A.  ¿Conejo  a  lo  pactado  en  La  Havana,  Caja  de  Herramientas  Nº  00370  

  that   there   was   no   land   reform   but   rather   a   counter   land   reform   based   on   African  Caja  de     But   we   should   remember   that   the   idea   of   a   guerrilla   as   a   criminal   is   relatively   new   and   forms   part   of   the   new   world   order   after   the   attack   on   the   Twin   Towers.2     There   is  also  an  agricultural  model  in  place  that  gives  lie  to  any  intention  to  carry  out  even  a   partial   reform.     This   model   is   the   handing   over   of   state   lands   to   large   foreign   and   national  companies.N.e.     The   agreement   contains   various   points   such   as   a   special   jurisdiction   to   judge   the   guerrillas.000   hectares   in   Vichada.   we   only   have   the   joint   communiqué.co       4  See  U.   for   which   nobody   will   be   sentenced   i.   without   a   shadow   of   a   doubt.   they                                                                                                                   2  Cuellar  Solano.  Nº   00357  28/06/2013  a  04/07/2013  www.   the   accord   as   such   has   not   been   published.  ¿Conejo  a  lo  pactado  en  La  Havana.  1996   .  Despojo  de  Tierras:  el  modelo  Riopaila.   as   in   all   peace   processes   the  stupid  and  foolish  comments  of  that  kind  of  people  only  serve  to  distract  us  from   reality.    Maybe  the  most  disappointing  aspect  is  that  the  key   points  were  nothing  more  than  a  copy  of  the  agreement  signed  between  the  URNG  in   Guatemala.4  a   country   were   we   know.     The  Justice  Accord     So.     This   is   seen   as   progress   and   an   achievement   of   the   negotiations.  or  rather  to  ensure  that  all  those  who  enter  into  this  process  tell   the  whole  truth.Department   to   para-­‐politicians   and   friends   of   the   paramilitary   leader   Macaco.  A.     At   the   same   time   these   “companies”   leased   out   the   land   to   Riopaila   for   a   term   of   30   years  for  the  price  of  the  state  lands  in  question.  Caja  de  Herramientas  Nº  00370   27/09/2013  a  4/10/2013  www.    It  is  worth  pointing  out.  what  one  analyst  has  referred  to  as  the  Riopaila       3  López  Rincón.  the  trial  of  state  agents  and  mechanisms   to  establish  the    Nevertheless.   how   might   it   go   with   the   Justice   Accord?     The   government   announced   the   end   of   the   conflict   for   March   2016   and   the   usual   suspects   came  out  to  tell  us  what  a  great  agreement  it  was.  A  /50/956    June  6th.     Before   that.     Some   commentators   emphasised   the   fact   that   state   agents   will   also   be   tried   and   the   accord   recognises   the   existence   of   political   crimes   and   related   crimes.   for   which   27   Joint   Stock   Companies   were   set   up   and   received   loans   from   Riopaila   to   buy   the   land.    We  are  not  going  to  deal  with   the   diatribes   of   the   Colombian   right.  the  participation  of  foreign  judges.   represented   by   Uribe.  that  for  the   looking   at   the   Agrarian   Accord.  it  has  led  to  great  controversy.     The   company   bought   42.  J.   sugar   and   mining-­‐energy  projects.3     The  Riopaila  case  was  by  no  means  unique  and  all  of  this  happened  whilst  the  FARC   “negotiated”  the  Agrarian  Accord.   the   guerrilla   that   kills   in   combat   will   not   be   sentenced   for   this.

    In   2006.   supreme   capo   of   the   cattle   ranchers   in   the   FEDEGAN   association   acknowledged   that   the   cattle   ranchers   had   financed   the   AUC   paramilitaries   and   morever.   where   the   majority   of   the   paramilitaries   were   never  investigated  for  their  role  in  international  crimes  and  consequently  were   never  part  of  the  procedures  laid  down  in  Law  975.     Various  things  worry  the  MOVICE:  the  mechanism  to  select  cases  and  the  candidates   for   the   special   jurisdiction.  the  MOVICE  (Movement  of   Victims   of   State   Crimes)   dared   to   ask   some   pertinent   questions   and   questioned   the   reach  of  the  agreement.   it   is   not   known  how  many  prosecutors  will  be  assigned  to  the  cases  of  state  agents.  an  altruistic  agent  who  did  not  seek  personal  gain.   (26/09/2015)Que   el   acuerdo   de     jurisdicción   para   la   paz   no   deje   en   la   impunidad  crímenes  de  estado.    South  Africa  is  spoken  of  in  such  terms.     The   agreement   does   not   say   this.   no   investigations   were   undertaken   against   them.   but   rather   the   opposite.  the  lack  of   clarity  on  the  non-­‐repetition  of  crimes  by  state  agents.     But   it   is   not   true   that   state   crimes   have   been   placed   on   the   same   level   as   the   insurgency.   he   was   never   investigated   nor   was   he   asked  for  the  information  that  he  had.  with  the  majority  of  state  crimes  those  most  responsible  have   never   been   linked   to   any   criminal   prosecution   for   these   events.    On  the   state’s  crimes  the  MOVICE  says:     On  the  other  hand.     If   it   didn’t   happen   in   the   context   of   the   process   with   the   paramilitaries  it  is  not  going  to  happen  now  in  the  process  with  the  FARC.   José   Felix   Lafaurie.  So.  publicado  en  http://anncol.   which   means   that  the  majority  of  these  cases  will  not  be  remitted  to  the  Peace  Jurisdiction  and   will  remain  in  impunity.   however.   as  if  it  were  a  great  success.    There  are  those  who  seek  to  promote  the  naïve   hope  amongst  the  people  that  a  low-­‐life  such  as  Lafaurie  will  be  charged  or  that  they   will   tell   the   truth.     Human   rights   groups   traipse   around   the   world   sowing   illusory   hopes   in   the   justice   systems  and  the  peace  agreements  signed  in  other  countries.  the                                                                                                                   5  Movice.   he   stated   that   he   had   information   on   the   payments   made   by   national   and   international   companies   and   palm   and   rice     6  See  El  Cambio  No  704  diciembre  2006/enero  2007  Diez  Preguntas  (Entrevista  con   José  Félix  Lafaurie)     .  this   achievement  is  relative  but  is  nonetheless  important.  amongst  other  things.5     Indeed.     Salvatore   Mancuso   stated   that   the   majority   of   the   oil   companies   in   Casanare   paid   money   to   the   AUC.6  Nothing   ever   happened   to   him.   those   most   responsible   and   the   companies   were   never   touched   during   the   process   with   the   paras.  repeating  the  experience  of  what  happened  with  the  so   called   Justice   and   Peace   Law.were  seen  as  armed  rebels.     Whilst   the   “intellectuals”  unreservedly  applaud  the  accord  as  historic.    Some  police  officers  were  not  amnestied  but  De  Klerk.   the   state   agents   will   receive   special   treatment.  without  even  looking  at   what  the  real  result  of  these  processes  were.

  The   Parties   agree   on   the   need   for   firm   action   against   impunity.   the   police   murdered   34   miners   in   Marikana.  responsible  for  the  slaughter  of  200.   an   attempt   was   made   to   bring   to   justice   Ríos   Montt.   some   lower   ranking   officers   were   tried.     2.    Amnesty  International  in   its  recent  report  points  out  that:     In  May.  just  like  it  was  in  South  Africa.   recognition   of   enforced   or   involuntary   disappearances   and   of   summary   or   extra-­‐judicial   executions   as   crimes  against  humanity.  but  also  for  today’s  ones  as   well.    Such  was  the  impunity  in  South  Africa  that  they  never  touched  any  of  the   companies   and   today   Colombia   is   a   victim   of   that   process.   South   Africa.000  people   and   that   attempt   failed.     The   mining   company   Anglogold.  Congress  passed  a  non-­‐binding  resolution  stating  that  genocide  had  not                                                                                                                   7  Comprehensive  Agreement  on  Human  Rights  Chapter  III  www.  the  genocidal  mass  murderer.     One   of   the   directors   of   the   mining   company   was   Cyril   Ramaphosa.     Although.     In   2012.   No   special   law   or   exclusive   jurisdiction   may   be   invoked   to   uphold   impunity   in   respect  of  human  rights  violations.     If  we  take  a  look  at  Guatemala.  The  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Guatemala  shall  initiate  in  the  legislature   necessary  legal  amendments  to  the  Penal  Code  so  that  enforced  or  involuntary   disappearances  and  summary  or  extra-­‐judicial  executions  may  be  characterized   as  crimes  of  particular  gravity  and  punished  as  such.   despite   the   conformation   of   the   International   Commission   Against   Impunity  in  boss  of  the  death  squads.  of  the  apartheid  system  itself  received  a   Nobel  prize.  the  Government   shall   foster   in   the   international   community.  but  it  will  be   one  of  the  beneficiaries  of  peace  in  Colombia.     3.    Impunity  is  not  just  for  yesterday’s  companies.     The   document   also   expressly   prohibits   armed   private   justice   groups.  of  the  torturers.  impunity  is  what  there  is.   one   of   the   main   beneficiaries   and   victimizers   of   apartheid   was   let   loose   around  Colombia.   now   vice-­‐president   of   the   country.  we  can  see  that  there  was  no  justice  for  the  victims  of   state   crimes.  likewise.    It  has  not  only  managed  to  install  itself  in  this  country.    However.     After   much   pressure.     It   failed   despite   the   Comprehensive   Agreement   on   Human   Rights  signed  in  1994  that  stipulated:     .   there   was   total   impunity   for  the  high  ranking  military  officers.   The   Government   shall   not   sponsor   the   adoption   of   legislative   or   any   other   type   of   measures   designed   to   prevent   the   prosecution   and   punishment   of   persons   responsible  for  human  rights  violations.  amongst  them  Ríos  Montt.7 It   couldn’t   be   clearer.  and  of  course  there  is   total   impunity   in   relation   to   the   murders   committed   by   the   private   justice   groups   nowadays.usip.

  in   El   Aguacate.  who  referred  to  the  issue  explained  that   ‘it  was  never  considered  that  former  presidents  would  have  to  go  before  that  tribunal’   and  added  that  such  statements  ‘end  up  harming  the  process’.  Over   80%  of  those  killed  and  disappeared  were  of  Indigenous  Maya  ethnicity.   page  167   9  Ibíd   10  Semana  (29/09/2015)  La  metida  de  pata  del  fiscal  Montealegre  www.     Trying  Politicians     The   ink   had   hardly   dried   and   the   first   controversies   erupted.   but   he   also   says   that   those   who   propose   this.     This   hasn’t   just   be   seen   in   other   countries.000  people  were  killed  and  45.   Fermín   Solano   Barrillas.000  people  were  forcibly  disappeared.  politicians  and   businessmen  sleep  easily  at  night.  we  can  clearly  state  that   there   will   not   be   any   major   sanctions   made   against   high-­‐ranking   officers   and   less   still   against   politicians   as   a   result   of   the   agreement   on   justice.   that   under   the   new   agreement   the   former   president   Uribe   Vélez   will   be   subjected   to   criminal   prosecution.   and   Congress   says   that   the   genocide   carried  out  by  him  and  others  is  a  fairy  tale.   “in   the   name   of   peace.”10     One   should   listen   carefully   to   the   minister.   said.     In   El   Salvador   the   Amnesty   Law   was   passed   in   1993.  war  crimes  and  crimes   against   humanity   had   occurred   during   the   internal   armed   conflict.     This   phrase   will   be   heard   repeatedly   in   the   future.  Yesid  Reyes.  London.     That   law   is   the   guarantee  of  impunity  in  the  country  and  the  reason  why  the  military.  The  resolution  directly  contradicted   a  1999  UN  investigation  which  concluded  that  genocide.occurred  during  the  internal  armed  conflict.  AI.  but  it  does  contrast  sharply  with  the  case  of   Ríos  Montt.8     At  the  same  time  the  report  points  out  that:     In   July.    They  may   well  be  right  in  the  case  of  this  guerrilla.   harm   the   peace   process.   do   not   ask   for   more.   was   sentenced   to   90   years   in   prison   for   directing   the   massacre   of   22   people   in   1988.semana.     It  is  a  clear  example  of  what  can  be  expected.     The   Chief   Prosecutor   of   the   Nation.   one   year   after   the   end   of   the   conflict.   do   not   demand   more.   whilst   Ríos   Montt   walks   free.   in   statements   to   the   press.”   the   victims   seeking   justice   will   be   the   new   terrorists   who   want   to   destabilise   the   country.   Chimaltenango   department.   not   only   does   he   rule   out   any   possibility   of   trying   the   likes   of   Uribe.   in   which   200.   a   former   member   of   the   armed   opposition   during   the   internal   armed   conflict.9     In   other   words.    In       .  ex  guerrillas  are  prosecuted.     The   state   reacted   quickly  “The  Minister  for  Justice.   in   Colombia   we   have   seen   examples   of   this   when   the   church   demands   that                                                                                                                   8  Amnesty  International  (2015)  The  State  of  the  World’s  Human  Rights.

    As   with   other   peace   processes.    So.     Humberto  de  la  Calle  in  the  dock     While  we  are  at  it.   all   the   suffering.    De  la  Calle  was  Minister  of  the  Interior  in  1990  and   1991  when  the  Trujillo  massacre  was  at  its  height.     Peace   processes   are   based   on   a   lie   that   nobody   wins   and   nobody   loses   and   that   peace   is   a   project   involving   us   all.     So.   not   even   chain   of   command  responsibility.  we  can  ask  for  the  head  of  the  government’s  negotiating  team  to  be   tried  by  the  special  jurisdiction.     Bonnet   did   not   accept   any   responsibility.   however.     But   this   won’t   happen.     This   was   something   important   and   ethical   for   him.     The   only   person   who   has   said   this.   is   Humberto   de   la   Calle.   setting   up.     He   was   vice-­‐president   for   two   years   under   Samper.    He   did  it  by  applying  the  legislation  in  force.  who  would  later  kill  other  civilians  and  became  the  legal  façade  of   the   paramilitary   groups   was   not   an   ethical   question.  under   the   command   of   Manuel   Bonnet   (future   head   of   the   armed   forces)   murdered   hundreds   of   people.  as  Uribe  didn’t  do   anything  that  they  didn’t  do  at  some  stage.  although  they  will  receive  special  treatment.    It  is  quite  clear  who  wins  a  war:  those  that  are  left   standing  and  the  winner  places  all  the  blame  for  all  the  ills  that  afflict  the  country.     That   is   why   the   FARC  will  be  tried:  they  lost  and  as  a  bone  tossed  to  them.  just  like  they  explicitly  stated  in  the  process  with   the  paramilitaries.  the  official  army  does  not.  all   of   the   horror   of   the   war.11     Forgiveness   is   only   half   of   the   slogan   Neither  Forgive  Nor  Forget.   on   just   one   actor:   the   loser.    The  III  Division  of  the  army.     The   FARC   withdraw   from   battle   and   dissolve.  why  not?     Humberto’s   exploits   don’t   end   there.with  the  blessing  of  the  state.     They  will  have  to  forgive  and  forget.the  victims  forgive  the  victimizers.     But   it   is   not   so.  but  President  Samper  did  accept  the  state’s  responsibility  for   that  massacre.  but  so  should  all  of  the  presidents.   the   state   won.  do  the  ministers  of  that  government  bear  any  responsibility  and  if   not.     The  journalist  William  Ospina  described  it  very  well  in  his  column  in  El  Espectador:                                                                                                                   11  El  Tiempo  (24/12/2006)  La  Iglesia  tiene  su  archivo  de  la  verdad  page  17   .   organizing   and   supplying   civilian   groups  with  arms.   he   did   not   resign   over   the   Convivir.   the   main   beneficiaries   will   not   lose   their   status   or   privileges   as   beneficiaries   and   of   course   they   will   not   lose   their   liberty  either  and  the  reason  is  a  simple.  some  low  ranking  military   officers  maybe  tried.     It   is   not   a   crazy   notion   to   propose   that   De   la   Calle   be   tried   by   the   special   jurisdiction   and   that   he   tell   us   the   WHOLE  truth  in  order  to  obtain  the  judicial  benefits  that  would  apply  in  the  case.  though  rarely  mentioned  one:  the  FARC  lost   the   war.  even  his  actions  in  the  1990s  as  governor   of   Antioquia   were   covered   by   the   decree   issued   by   Gaviria   and   the   government   of   Samper.    He  didn’t  set  up  the  Convivir  (Rural  Security  Cooperatives)  on  his  own.     He   quit   for   ethical   reasons   surrounding   drug   money   in   the   electoral   campaign   of   Samper.     Not  only  should  Uribe  be  tried.    This  is  the  essence  of  the  accord  in  relation  to  the   state’s  agents.

  they   are   the   ones   who   end   up   absolving   and   forgiving.   due   to   the   electoral   fraud   of   the   elections   of   1970.    To  such  a  degree  that   they   are   always   there.   the   rebels   of   the   60s.   of   the   mafias   in   the   1980s.   in   the   midst   of   it   all.  for  the  guerrillas  due   to  the  abandonment  of  the  countryside.  in  the  national  project.     The   agreement   and   the   process   are   not   ushering   in   a   new   era   of   justice   and   an   end   to   impunity.12       As  Julio  Cortázar  said  in  El  Libro  de  Manuel  “it  is  very  important  to  understand  who   practices  violence:  whether  it  is  those  who  cause  misery  or  those  that  fight  against  it.  50  years  earlier.    Its  struggle  against   impunity   is   not   nearing   its   final   stage.  they  even  bear  responsibility  for  the  FARC.   not   only   do   they   manage   to   be   invisible.   they   will   have   to   find   brave   prosecutors   who   know   that   for   their   courage   and   daring   they   will   be   persecuted  and  harassed  like  their  counterparts  in  Guatemala.  had  such  a  project  existed…     What  amazes  me  is  the  astuteness  of  the  leadership  of  this  country.     The  complaints  of  the  MOVICE.elespectador.  they  manage  to  show  themselves  as  being  innocent.     The   state   is   the   main   culprit   of   the   violence   and   if   we   search   for   war   criminals.  in  the  General  Staff  of  the   Armed  Forces  and  of  course.  not  only  are  they   absolved   of   all   responsibility.   due   to   the   closing   off   of   business   opportunities   and   the   continuous  and  suicidal  dismantling  of  the  legal  economy.   but   rather   it   is   barely   beginning.   whose   rights   they   restricted.  for  the  paramilitaries  that  aimed  to  give  protection  to  the  landowners  that   the  state  would  not  give.  I  have  to  repeat  what  I  have  said  so  often:  the   leaders  of  Colombia  in  the  last  century  are  the  main  cause  of  the  problems  of  the   nation.    But  the  MOVICE  will  have  to   begin  to  rid  itself  of  its  illusions  in  the  process   and  the  agreement.  and   they  pass  under  the  radar  as  the  cause  of  the  problems.  for  this  half   century   of   useless   war   against   an   anachronistic   enemy   that   could   have   been   included.    W.   for   M19.    They  will  have  to   struggle   just   like   the   Guatemalans   to   bring   the   likes   of   Montt   to   justice.   that   it   demands   the   participation  of  victims  in  the  process  to  select  cases   .  but  rather  impunity  will  have  new  mechanisms  and  those  that  seek  justice   will  be  accused  of  seeking  the  end  of  “peace”  and  “reconciliation”.  we  will  find  them  in  the  Congress  of  the  Republic.  in  the  state’s  negotiating  team  in  Havana.    They  are  responsible  for  the  bandits  of  the  50s   that   they   armed   and   indoctrinated.  the  exclusion  and  irresponsibility  of  the   state.   Although   the   FARC   have   acknowledged   that   they   are   the   main   culprits   for   the   crimes  and  atrocities  of  this  war.     It   is   fitting   that   the   MOVICE   complains   and   asks   questions.  which  once   more  achieves  its  aim  of  showing  to  the  world  the  culprits  of  the  violence.   it   is   their   vision   of   this   country   and   the   way   they   have   administered   it   that  is  the  cause  of  everything.                                                                                                                   12  Ospina.”     The  peace  process  with  the  FARC  and  in  particular  the  agreement  on  justice  negates   this   aspect.  El  Espectador  (26/09/2015)  Los  invisibles  www.

  never   mind   tried.    If  it  is  a  case  of  trying  some  soldiers.  despite  him   violating   human   rights   in   the   Basque   Country.  as  has  occurred  in  all  the  peace  processes  with   .     To   date   the   International   Criminal   Court   has   tried   Africans   for   the  conflicts  there  and  has  ignored  the  role  of  foreign  interests  in  all  of  those  conflicts.     The   MOVICE   will   also   have   to   rid   itself   of   its   illusions   in   international   justice.   restricted   the   right   of   association   and   has   processed   prisoners   who   have   been   tortured.     Do   they   really   believe   this?     Notwithstanding   the   findings   of   the   Inter-­‐ American  Court  of  Human  Rights.   the   international   judges   will   not   be   impartial.   but   not   their   military   commanders.    However.   not   the   government   and   less   still   queen   Elizabeth   who   decorated  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  massacre.   Impunity  is  not  just  a  problem  in  Latin  America.   just   like   they   have   never   been  in  any  of  the  conflicts  where  the  economic  interests  of  the  imperialist  countries   are   at   stake   and   we   are   not   just   referring   to   Iraq   and   Syria.  a  foreign  judge   may   be   impartial.     The  defeat  must  be  seen  as  what  it  is  and  organise  in  the  midst  of  that  reality.     After  all  he  is  the  favourite  judge  of  the  human  rights  NGOs  in  Colombia.   where   he   has   closed   newspapers.   workers   and   human   rights   organizations  will  make  no  headway  in  their  struggle  against  impunity.     Singing   of   a   false   and   non-­‐existent   victory   (or   even   a   partial   advance)   helps   no   one.     Does   anyone   believe   that   the   board   of   Chiquita   who   have   already   accepted   their   role   in   the   dirty   war   in   Colombia   will   be   tried?     A   Canadian   judge   will   not   say   much   about   the   role   of   Canadian   mining   companies   and   a   British   judge  will  not  be  that  impartial  when  it  comes  to  trying  BP  for  what  it  has  done.  in  practice.   the   peasant.   but   also   the   dirty   wars   waged   in   Latin   America.     The   inquiry   found   that   the   soldiers   on   the   ground   were   partly   responsible.  nor  even  fully  identified.     Perhaps  they  hope  that  judge  Baltasar  Garzón  will  help  in  the  fight  against  impunity.    A  commission  was  set  up  to  investigate   the   Bloody   Sunday   massacre   where   13   civilians   were   murdered   before   TV   cameras.     In   its   communiqué   it   refers   to   the   involvement   of   international   judges   as   a   guarantee   of   impartiality.   although   we   should   recall   that   in   recent   years   a   number   of   high   ranking   officers   have   been   tried   and   sentenced   for   the   false   positives   by   the   Colombian  system.   it   has   sentenced   various   Africans   and   not   a   single   European   involved   in   the   trafficking   of   so   called   “blood   diamonds”.     If  it  is  not  accepted  that  the  FARC  have  been  militarily  defeated  and  that  the  content  of   the   accords   shows   a   deep   political   defeat.    One  must  first   take   account   of   the   situation   that   the   grassroots   movements   find   themselves   in.    In  Ireland  those  responsible  for  state   massacres   and   torture   were   never   identified.     In   the   case   of   Sierra   Leone.  international  justice  works  as  a  type  of   judicial   imperialism.    Neither  have  the  British  agents  involved  in  the   Dublin   and   Monaghan   bombings   been   identified   and   to   date   the   British   and   Irish   states  deny  the  involvement  of  state  agents.  if  at  any  point  an  attempt  is  made  to  deal  with  foreign   companies.     It   didn’t   even   consider  trying  any  Europeans.     The   murderers   of   lawyers  such  as  Pat  Finucane  have  not  been  tried.    To  act   according  to  the  logic  of  the  great  victory  or  advance  that  the  accords  are  is  to  prepare   for  even  deeper  defeats  in  the  future.  although  it   is  known  that  state  agents  took  part.

    After   all   they   are   independent   organizations   and   should   show   it.   where   the   social   organizations   did   not   vindicate   their   autonomy   regarding   the   signed   agreements.     The   options   are   always   greater  than  the  false  choice  of  more  war  or  the  peace  process.   but   rather   signed   up   to   them   in   an   uncritical   manner   and   were   not   in   a   position   to   make   progress   in   their   struggles   because   they   had   tied   themselves   to   agreements   signed   between   outside   forces:   the   insurgency   and   the   state.     It   is   time   to   distance   themselves   from   the   process.   the   social   agreements   should   be   negotiated   with   social   agents   who   should   have   their   own   criteria.insurgent   organizations.     The   end   of   the   shooting   match   is   up   to   the   insurgency   and   the   state   and   nobody   else.                                                     .     To   criticise   or   oppose   an   agreement   is   not   the   same   as   asking   for   more   war.   as   the   mentally   impoverished   intellectuals   would   have   us   believe.