Colombia's landmark Victims Law jeopardized by Uribistas

[Judi Lynn]

Colombia's landmark Victims Law jeopardized by Uribistas
Tuesday, 24 May 2011 15:03
Tom Heyden

A bloc of Uribista senators, acting under the "influence" of Uribe himself, proposed a major change to the Victims Law during the final debate in the Colombian Senate, newspaper Semana reported Tuesday.

The actions of former President Alvaro Uribe and his supporters threaten to derail what would be a historic piece of legislation that aims to provide reparations to victims of violence in Colombia's prolonged internal armed conflict.

The dispute over the law centers once again around the inclusion of victims of state violence, such as those affected by the "false positives" scandal that rocked the Uribe administration, as opposed to including only the victims of paramilitary or guerrilla organizations under the law's benefits.

It is the same dispute that ultimately sank the proposed law when it was last under consideration by Congress during Uribe's administration in 2009.

More:
http://www.colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/16491-colombias-landmark-victims-law-jeopardized-by-uribistas.html

[gbscar]

1. This proposal was not, in fact, included in the law approved yesterday evening.

For those who might be interested in an update about these issues.

Quote:

En el tema que fue sí fue derrotado el uribismo es en la reparación para los agentes de víctimas del Estado. Aunque hubo una intención de los senadores Juan Carlos Vélez y Manuel Enríquez Rosero, uribistas purasangre, de incluir un artículo para que sólo tras de un proceso abreviado de 18 meses se diera la reparación para esas víctimas, esa idea fue derrotada

Translation:

One field in which Uribism was actually defeated was that of reparations for the victims of state agents. Although there was an attempt by senators Juan Carlos Velez and Manuel Enriquez Rosero, purebred Uribistas, to include an article that would only provide reparations to those victims after an abbreviated 18 month judicial process, this idea was rejected.

Source:

http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/politica/articulo-272417-conflicto-armado-senado-aprobo-ultimo-debate-ley-de-victimas

Uribe's pressure also failed to remove the "armed conflict" phrasing, but he did manage to include an additional paragraph as follows:

Quote:

En uno de los párrafos se recalcó que “no habrá reconocimiento ni legitimación alguna al terrorismo y se reitera la vocación de las Fuerzas Armadas de ir al ataque en defensa de la sociedad colombiana”.

Translation:

In one of the paragraphs it was stressed that "there will be no recognition or any legitimation for terrorism and the vocation of the Armed Forces to go on the offensive in defense of Colombian society is hereby reiterated."

Source:

http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/politica/articulo-272417-conflicto-armado-senado-aprobo-ultimo-debate-ley-de-victimas

It's a rather unnecessary inclusion, since legally speaking no such recognition is tied to the use of the term "armed conflict" regardless of Uribe's paranoia, to say nothing of its cynicism in light of numerous abuses that have taken place by "going on the offensive in defense of Colombian society."

Nevertheless, the fact this law fails to meet all of Uribe's standards and actually goes against his stated policy in several respects is generally a good thing. But is it enough? No, not by any means. At best, it's just a starting point.