US embassy cable - 05BOGOTA8410

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BOGOTA 008410 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/02/2015 
TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, PTER, SNAR, CO, Demobilization 
SUBJECT: DRAFT EU REPORT RECOMMENDS SUPPORT FOR THE J&P LAW 
 
Classified By: Ambassador William B. Wood for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
1. (C) A draft EU Bogota Heads of Mission report prepared for 
the Committee of the Council for Latin America (COLAT) 
meeting in early September recommended that the EU support 
the GOC in its implementation of the Justice and Peace law. 
The draft report recommends specific areas of cooperation, 
and notes that only France is uncomfortable with its 
conclusions.  Embassy would be interested in readout of 
September 6 COLAT meeting on Colombia.  End Summary. 
 
2. (C) Post received an advance copy of a report the COLAT 
requested the European Union Heads of Missions (HOMs) in 
Bogota to produce on recommendations for European Union (EU) 
policy on the Justice and Peace law (copy e-mailed to 
WHA/AND).  COLAT's request followed the Council's December 
2004 conclusions which suggested more formal EU involvement 
once the Colombian government had set out a comprehensive 
legal framework and a comprehensive strategy concerning 
concentration, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration 
of the members of the illegal armed groups into society.  The 
HOMs' report consolidates information on the Justice and 
Peace (J&P) law, including its provisions, GOC views, 
reactions and criticisms, and then makes recommendations for 
the EU's position with respect to the law. 
 
3. (C) HOMs share many of the concerns expressed by the law's 
critics, notably on issues such as the capacity of the legal 
system to cope with the demands placed on it; the need for 
effective dismantling of paramilitary structures; the need 
for proper attention to victims' rights; and the need to deal 
effectively with any who might return to crime and to exclude 
drug traffickers and their organizations from legal benefits. 
 HOMs explain, however, that it is not reasonable to expect 
the GOC to make changes after such a long and thorough 
democratic process.  They consider that the EU's attention 
should therefore focus on attempting to make sure that the 
law has a positive impact, without the EU assuming functions 
regarding implementation which should remain the 
responsibility of the Colombian government. 
 
4. (C) HOMs argue, however, that to reject the law outright 
would go against the long-standing EU policy of advocating a 
negotiated solution to the conflict, and they would run the 
risk of being criticized for having stood aside should the 
process go wrong.  EU verification, on the other hand, could 
have a strong impact both practically and politically, 
helping manage some of the risks.  Nevertheless, should the 
GOC fail to abide by the conditions set down in the law, the 
reports says the EU should be ready to withdraw its support 
with immediate effect, while maintaining support for state 
institutions, local civil society and international 
organizations. 
 
5. (C) HOMs suggest the following areas of possible EU-GOC 
cooperation: 
 
-- Support for an effective verification/monitoring presence, 
led by a multi-disciplinary group (possibly working in 
conjunction with MAPP/OAS), including UN agencies and 
European experts; the results of the process should be 
published. 
 
-- Support for a mission from the Inter-American Commission 
on Human Rights, which would produce an interim evaluation of 
the process during the first half of 2006. 
 
-- Consider support for the involvement of the UNHCHR office 
in Colombia to monitor the law's implementation and offer 
technical assistance to the Colombian government and civil 
society in the light of its findings. 
-- Support to the Ombudsman's office (Defensoria del Pueblo) 
and to the Office of the Procurator General (Procuraderia) to 
provide legal advice to and support for victims, groups 
wishing to initiate cases under the provisions of the law. 
-- Support for the office of the Attorney General (Fiscalia) 
and to the office of forensic medicine to enhance their 
capacity to carry out investigations related to the 
implementation of the law. 
 
-- Technical assistance to facilitate the effective 
implementation of the law: for example, in the organization 
of evidence collected to ensure proper cross-referencing, and 
to allow public access to the information as required by the 
law. 
 
-- Assist reinsertion programs, on condition that those 
benefiting had completely ceased all illegal activities. 
 
-- Support the reinsertion and demobilization of child 
soldiers to complement existing programs developed by UNICEF, 
the IOM and local and international NGOs. 
 
6. (C) The report suggests the following for possible areas 
of co-operation with civil society and victims: 
 
-- Support for local reconciliation activities in areas where 
demobilization is taking place, using EU member states' 
experience in, for example, Northern Ireland. 
OAS/Netherlands projects in community justice could provide a 
model for such support. 
 
-- Support for victims' groups, either directly, or through 
technical assistance to the regional restorative justice 
committees set up under the law. 
 
-- Help for communities affected by the conflict, including 
those receiving demobilized combatants.  This might include 
psychological support to individuals or organizations. 
 
7. (C) HOMs conclude that COLAT should consider a new set of 
Council conclusions which would incorporate a shortened form 
of these recommendations, while pointing to the aspects of 
the law about which they are most concerned (dismantling of 
paramilitary structures illegal activities, capacity of the 
legal system to deliver, victims' rights and the on-going 
drugs problem).  The conclusions should also reiterate the 
EU's call on the other illegal armed groups to enter into 
negotiations with the government in order to find a peaceful 
solution to the conflict, to desist from drug trafficking, to 
stop immediately all kidnapping and to release all hostages. 
 
8. (C) The report states that the French delegation voiced 
reservations about the report's conclusions, stating that it 
was too soon for the EU to take decisions on involvement in 
the process.  The French also expressed doubts about some of 
the law's provisions and its ability to deliver positive 
results. (We undertand that, although the French did not 
support the effort, they also did not block it, a step 
forward.) 
 
9. (C) Embassy would be interested in readout from September 
6 COLAT meeting on the draft report. 
WOOD