VZCZCXYZ0012
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBO #7986/01 2422207
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 302207Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY BOGOTA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8439
INFO RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 7077
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 8133
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ AUG LIMA 4195
RUEHZP/AMEMBASSY PANAMA 9468
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO 4858
RUEHGL/AMCONSUL GUAYAQUIL 3668
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 007986 

SIPDIS 

SIPDIS 

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/30/2016 
TAGS: KJUS PGOV PINR PREL PTER CO
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE DRAFT JUSTICE AND 
PEACE LAW REGULATIONS 


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

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

¶1.  (C)  A preliminary analysis of the the GOC draft Justice 
and Peace Law (JPL) regulations published on August 29 for 
public comment indicates that it is a mixed bag.  The draft 
follows the Constitutional Court standard for para disclosure 
of their crimes, requires paras to use their licit assets to 
satisfy reparations, and does not preclude or hinder 
extradition.  Still, paras would not lose their JPL benefits 
if their licit assets are insufficient to pay reparations, 
and any time spent in custody at Le Ceja will be credited as 
time served.  Coupled with the up to 18 months credit for 
time spent in Ralito, this could mean some paras serve little 
real jail time.  The decree could change since the GOC has 
posted it on the Presidency website for public comment until 
September 3.  End summary. 

-------------------------------------- 
JPL REGULATIONS OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 
-------------------------------------- 

¶2.  (C) The GOC published three decrees on August 29 relating 
to the application of the JPL.  The first decree authorizes 
theFiscalia to call demobilized members of the AUC in to 
ratify their commitment and eligibility for JPL.  Minister of 
Interior and Justice Carlos Holguin said the decree allows 
the prosecutors to begin the application of the JPL and 
advance to the investigative and judicial phases.  The other 
two decrees, which are posted for public comment until 
September 3, address the regulatory procedures for the Public 
Order Law (782) and the JPL.  Our analysis focuses on the JPL 
decree. 

----- 
TRUTH 
----- 

¶3.  (C) The demobilized paramilitary will have to provide a 
full confession regarding all crimes in which he participated 
(Art. 12, paragraph 3.).  The decree states that a 
demobilized paramilitary loses benefits if he omits a crime 
from his version libre, intentionally or not.  However, the 
paramilitary involved would first have to be convicted of 
such a crime.  Moreover, the crime must be significant and 
relevant to the peace process.  This is the standard set by 
the Constitutional Court ruling on the JPL.  With regard to 
the post-alternative sentence "probationary period," the 
decree provides for the loss of benefits for any "delito
doloso" that was omitted (Art. 17, paragraph 2.) 

----------------------------------------- 
REPARATIONS WITH ILLICIT AND LICIT ASSETS 
----------------------------------------- 

¶4.  (C) The demobilized paramilitary may be required to use 
licit assets for reparations.  Following sentencing, the 
decree provides that legal assets must be used to pay 
reparations when illegal assets are insufficient, provided 
that the demobilized has enough assets to lead a "dignified 
existence"  (Art. 29, paragraph 1.)  Still, the decree states 
that the failure to pay reparations with legal assets can 
never be a reason for disqualifying someone from the 
alternative sentencing benefits of the Law.  In addition, if 
responsibility for the crimes for which the individual is 
sentenced can be assigned to a group, then first recourse on 
reparations will be to the group and only subsequently to the 
individual (Art. 29, paragraph 3.) 

----------------------- 
DISCOUNTS ON SENTENCING 
----------------------- 

¶5.  (C) The demobilized paramilitary will receive discount on 
sentencing.  They will receive a discount for the time spent 
in Santa Fe de Ralito, a maximum of 18 months, and might also 
receive credit for the time spent at La Ceja.  Article 17 of 
the decree states the decision of the Constitutional Court, 
which found that the time spent in Ralito could not count 
towards the alternative sentence (Art. 31 of Law 975,) could 
not be applied retroactively.  In addition, the last 
paragraph on Article 15 suggests that if the paras
voluntarily turn themselves in and are placed in the centers 
selected and administered by INPEC, such as La Ceja; they 
will also receive credit for this time served. 

----------------- 
PRISON CONDITIONS 
----------------- 

¶6.  (C) The demobilized paramilitary will have to serve time 
in regular prisons.  The decree provides that the persons 
serve at least half of their sentence in regular prisons. 
Once half of the alternative sentence is served, a person 
sentenced under 975 can serve the rest of his sentence as 
permitted by Article 28 of Law 65 of 1993, which allows the 
remaining time to be served in an institution other than a 
regular penitentiary, such as an agricultural colony. 

----------- 
EXTRADITION 
----------- 

¶7.  (C) The decree does not address extradition. Presidential 
legal advisor Mauricio Gonzalez told us that the separate 
sedition decree would give the paras an additional argument 
to use against extradition, but the paras understood this 
would not be a winning argument.  He said the paras' real 
purpose in seeking a sedition decree is to allow them to 
escape Art 179 of the Constitution which bans individuals 
convicted of a "delitodoloso," unless such a  crime is 
political, from running for Congress. 

------------------- 
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS 
------------------- 

¶8.  (C) The decree creates a rebuttable presumption that all 
crimes committed by the demobilized, including drug 
trafficking and illegal enrichment offenses, from the moment 
they joined an illegal armed group, were committed as part of 
their membership in the group (Art 3, paragraph 3.)  The only 
way to rebut this presumption is for the Fiscalia to prove 
that the crimes were neither "collateral," "concomitant," nor 
"subsidiary" to the activities of the group, but were rather 
the sole purpose of this group.  Gonzalez told us he opposes 
the article, but it is unclear if the GOC will remove it 
after the public comment period closes on September 3.  He 
said such a presumption would unacceptably protect AUC 
members who killed someone while drunk or who had engaged in 
illicit activities solely for personal gain. 
WOOD