DRAFT EU REPORT RECOMMENDS SUPPORT FOR THE J&P LAW

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
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