Home » Uribe confronted former FARC leadership for criticism of the JEP

Uribe confronted former FARC leadership for criticism of the JEP

by admin
Uribe confronted former FARC leadership for criticism of the JEP

Former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez reacted to the letter from former high-ranking officials of the FARC guerrilla in which they questioned the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) for recent decisions that the magistrates have made and that, according to them, have become in pressure for dissidents.

The former president, who opposed the Government of Juan Manuel Santos and the Havana agreements reached with the FARC guerrilla in 2016, reproached the signatories of the letter, who were delegates in the negotiations, that they themselves designed the transitional justice mechanism that they now question.

“FARC imposed on the JEP that now it is of no use either,” said former president Uribe Vélez through his social networks, following the letter signed by seven former members of the secretariat and the Central General Staff of the extinct guerrilla.

In the letter, addressed to President Gustavo Petro to intercede in the inconvenience, they state that amnesties have not been granted to more than 3,000 people; They do not have life guarantees and the agreement would be breached by issuing several conclusion resolutions, one for each macro case, and summoning middle and lower management to testify. According to the signatories, this was not agreed upon in the text.

Former President Uribe’s speech that points to the JEP as a court “imposed” by the FARC guerrilla has been questioned by the same court. This instance of transitional justice was agreed upon at the dialogue table and subsequently discussed in the Congress of the Republic, in two laws, both procedural and a statutory law, which were later endorsed by the Constitutional Court.

See also  The next round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine is expected to be held on March 2 in the Belarus-Polish border area – yqqlm

Uribe Vélez was not the only one who spoke out against the letter from the peace signatories. The former Minister of Justice, Wilson Ruiz Orjuela, who accompanied the Government of Iván Duque, also referred to the communication in the same sense as the leader of the Democratic Center.

“The JEP, designed to satisfy the interests of the FARC, is now the subject of criticism from them, who accuse it of being unfair and of undermining the legal security of those who have enjoyed impunity. Infamous shameless people,” the former official wrote.

Senator Paloma Valencia also rejected the statement. “Do me a favor. For the FARC, the impunity and inefficiency of the Jep is not enough. They threaten: FARC warn that they would separate from the JEP due to “non-compliance” with that court,” she wrote on her account on the social network X.

Rafael Nieto Loaiza, Vice Minister of Justice during the Álvaro Uribe Government, also spoke out on the matter. The former official and presidential candidate of the Democratic Center has led criticism of the JEP, as well as proposals for its modification, even through a referendum as he proposed in 2020.

“I don’t like the origin of the @JEP_Colombia, their bias and that they have not yet been able to condemn the FARC. However, I must applaud that, in the face of threats from criminals, it warns that those who “fail to comply with their commitments are subject to loss of benefits,” Loaiza said.

The JEP responded to the appearing parties who signed the communication stating that the purpose of its jurisdiction is “the clarification of the truth and the guarantee of the rights of the victims.”

See also  Eating glutinous rice balls and making palace lanterns, this is how the Lantern Festival is celebrated in the closed loop of the Winter Olympics

Furthermore, the magistrates pointed out that the people who submitted to the jurisdiction are not responsible for issuing orders or guidelines about the way in which the judiciary must fulfill its mandate, which is governed by the laws issued.

From the FARC, however, they consider that the court has departed from the provisions of the Agreement and that is why they ask that the president intervene. With Infobae

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy