VZCZCXYZ0005
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBO #7262/01 2221359
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 101359Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY BOGOTA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7770
INFO RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 7038
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 8047
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ AUG LIMA 4117
RUEHZP/AMEMBASSY PANAMA 9414
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO 4772
RUEHGL/AMCONSUL GUAYAQUIL 3629
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHEHOND/DIRONDCP WASHDC
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC

C O N F I D E N T I A L BOGOTA 007262 

SIPDIS 

SIPDIS 

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/10/2016 
TAGS: KJUS PGOV PINR PREL PTER CO
SUBJECT: AMBASSADOR COMMENTS ON DRAFT OF GOC,S JUSTICE AND 
PEACE LAW IMPLEMENTING DECREE 

REF: BOGOTA 6549 

Classified By: Ambassador William B. Wood.
Reasons: 1.4 (b) and (d) 

------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 

¶1. (C) The Ambassador reviewed U.S. concerns regarding the 
GOC's draft implementing regulations clarifying key elements 
of the Constitutional Court's July 13 ruling on the Justice 
and Peace Law with Presidency's Judicial Secretary Mauricio 
Gonzalez on August 3.  The Ambassador stressed the importance 
of full disclosure, the need for paramilitary leaders to 
serve real time in jail and that the Law must not impede 
extradition.  Gonzalez, who is charged with reviewing the 
implementing decree, took careful note of the Ambassador's 
suggestions.  End summary. 

---------------------------------------- 
GOC NEEDS TO RESOLVE LAW 975 AMBIGUITIES 
---------------------------------------- 

¶2.  (C) The Ambassador met on August 3 with Mauricio Gonzalez 
to review U.S. concerns regarding the implementing 
regulations that the GOC is preparing to clarify the 
Constitutional Court's recent decision on the Justice and 
Peace Law (Law 975) (see reftel).  The Ambassador noted that 
the Constitutional Court decision was ambiguous on key 
issues, and urged the GOC not to resolve these issues in a 
way that seemed to go beyond what the Court intended.  Such 
an approach could spark another round of national and 
international criticism, such as that received during its 
approval in Congress last year. 

¶3.  (C) The Ambassador said the U.S. wanted to continue to 
support the GOC's peace process with paramilitaries as long 
the GOC held the paramilitaries to Law 975's requirements on 
truth, justice, and reparation.  With respect to truth, he 
told Gonzalez that the U.S. strongly supported the provision 
that calls for loss of Law 975 benefits if an individual 
failed to fully disclose any of the crimes that he had 
committed. 

¶4.  (C) Gonzalez said the GOC needed to specify which type of 
crimes had to be disclosed to protect demobilized individuals 
from malicious accusations that could lead to their loss of 
Law 975 benefits.  The Ambassador argued that only requiring 
the demobilized to disclose specific types of crimes could 
prompt some demobilized to conceal their involvement in 
other, serious offenses.  He suggested that a demobilized 
individual should lose his benefits if he intentionally or 
unintentionally did not disclose any crime that carried a 
minimum sentence of a year and in which that individual was a 
participant or an intellectual author.  He said that since no 
demobilized would lose his or her benefits unless later 
convicted of a crime subject to disclosure, the demobilized 
were already protected from spurious accusations. 

¶5.  (C) On justice, the Ambassador told Gonzalez that the Law 
called for incarceration under conditions of "security and 
austerity" that corresponded to normal confinement.  The 
draft decree suggests, however, that after a person serves 
one third of his sentence, he could be transferred from a 
jail cell to a farm or "agricultural colony."  The Ambassador 
argued that the 18-month credit for the time in Santa Fe de 
Ralito or other concentration zones should not be counted as 
part of that third because that would allow many to serve 
little or no time in a regular jail and to instead go 
straight to a farm.  (Note: The Court struck down Article 32 
that allowed credit for time in Santa Fe the Ralito, but, 
because the decision is not retroactive, those that 
demobilized on the basis of the 18-month credit would still 
receive it.)  He said given the Law's conditions of "security 
and austerity," additional regulations on "agricultural 
colonies" were not needed at this time. 


¶6.  (C) On reparation, the Ambassador said beneficiaries must 
relinquish their illicit assets before they qualified for 
benefits.  He added that once a judge assessed a demobilized 
individual's reparations bill, if the value of the 
reparations was greater than the value of the illicit assets 
already turned over, the individual should be required to 
turn over his licit assets to cover the shortfall.  The draft 
decree suggests that providing legal assets was not a 
requisite for complying with Law 975.  (Note: The Court 
declared that those subject to the Law would be required to 
use all illicit and licit assets to compensate their victims, 
rather than only illicit assets as stated in the Law approved 
by Congress.) 

¶7.  (C) The Ambassador said the U.S. will continue to insist 
that the Law must not impede extradition.  He asked how the 
GOC planned to interpret the Court ruling that Article 71, 
which sought to make "sedition" a political crime, was 
unconstitutional because of procedural errors.  The 
Ambassador voiced concern that if the GOC revived this 
Article, former paramilitary leaders could argue that they 
could not be extradited because their crime of 
narcotrafficking was "political" in nature.  Gonzalez 
responded that others who have committed political crimes, 
such as FARC commander Simon Trinidad, have been extradited 
for  non-political crimes such a narcotrafficking.  Gonzalez 
said the GOC understands that the Law must not preclude 
extradition. 

---------------------------------------- 
WHY THE NEED FOR AN IMPLEMENTING DECREE? 
---------------------------------------- 

¶8.  (C) The GOC is working on a new implementing decree to 
clarify how it plans to apply the Court's July 13 decision. 
It appears that Interior and Justice Minister SabasPretelt
will remain in office until the implementing regulations are 
finalized.  A debate continues on whether the Constitutional 
Court's ruling applies retroactively.  The Court's decision 
stated that it did not apply retroactively and the GOC takes 
the position that those who demobilized on the basis of the 
Justice and Peace Law approved by Congress in July 2005 are 
not subject to the Court's ruling announced on July 13. 
Moreover, the Colombian legal principle of favorability, 
which is found in Article 29 of the Constitution, says that 
an individual has the fundamental right to request the more 
favorable law to be applied to them; therefore, those 
demobilized who submit themselves to the Justice and Peace 
Law may insist the GOC apply the terms of Law 975 as approved 
by the Congress and not the Court. 
WOOD