“The JEP can become a world reference”: International Criminal Court

Two members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) spoke about the role of the JEP in the country. The vice prosecutor of this international body, James Stewart, and Judge Luz Ibañez Carranza, pointed out, during the meeting “Impact of the international courts of subsidiary jurisdiction”, that this special justice can become a benchmark model in the world.

In addition to this, the two members of the ICC also commented that the JEP and the justice of this international body do not clash with each other and stated that if they manage to work in an articulated manner and execute projects together, “Colombia will not only be able to perfect a model that seeks to investigate and prosecute those most responsible for the crimes committed in the context of the conflict, but will end up being a benchmark for the world.

On the other hand, Stewart affirmed that Colombia ended up being a pioneer in the design of a system “to deal with the legacy of serious human rights violations and achieve accountability, justice and reconciliation.”

For her part, Judge Luz Ibañez Carranza, of the International Criminal Court, said that “both jurisdictions seek the same goal and should support each other in their efforts. That is what we have seen among the courts of Bosnia, which were supplemented by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ”.

Deputy Prosecutor Stewart noted that “when the JEP is created, the authorities develop an accountability system that can deal with this great universe of crimes. This is the way in which a new jurisdiction sanctions conduct that might otherwise fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC (…) The examination takes time because we understand what is involved in the investigation and prosecution of entire sets of crimes that involve a variety of actors.

James Stewart, vice prosecutor of the ICC, during that meeting, “Emerging responses to contemporary atrocities”, also affirmed that the coordination that has taken place with the JEP is focused “Simply to understand what are the processes that will be carried out in a country that ended up being a pioneer in the design of a system which included a whole range of mechanisms, used by societies, to deal with the legacy of serious human rights violations and achieve accountability, justice and reconciliation ”.

The ICC judge, Luz Ibáñez Carranza, joined the same argument. For her, “both jurisdictions aim to punish and prevent massive atrocities. A noble but extremely arduous task. As they would say: it is like aiming at a moving target ”. Ibáñez added that “the alleged dichotomy between justice and peace is false. The one is not divorced from the other. Furthermore, justice is the basis and fundamental pillar for a stable and lasting peace ”.

The ICC held that when it comes to transitional justice, they refer to exceptional and provisional processes that societies in conflict or post-conflict put in place in order to facilitate transitions, whether from a dictatorship or period of conflict to settings of peace and democracy. .

In the Colombian case, for example, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office has been conducting a preliminary examination since 2004. According to Stewart, “in 2012 some crimes under the Rome Statute were identified that seemed to need attention. We had to give the authorities time to address these issues rather than concluding that we should open an investigation. This call has worked to the benefit of the local application of the international parameters of justice ”.

Precisely, the seven macro cases that the JEP has been investigating are characterized by three fundamental principlesAs the president of the Appeals Section, Magistrate Danilo Rojas, explained during the moderation of the third panel of experts: 1) They prioritize serious violations of human rights and International Humanitarian Law. 2) They involve the maximum responsible and determinants of such violations, and 3) They emphasize patterns and not so much individual cases.

Finally, Judge Ibáñez insisted that there is a negative ICC complementarity principle that works at the request of a country. It occurs because “the State cannot investigate or does not have the capacity to do so” and another positive when the Court is seen as a benchmark for its good practices and is consulted by the States to support the application of justice, because “the Court has a specialized system of complementary and not subsidiary action ”, he concluded.

You can also read:

Casa Acción Interna, a place for entrepreneurship and training for the prison population

“Buy a bag of milk or a pack of minutes, what do you prefer? Well, the milk bag ”: On the challenges in the education sector unresolved during the pandemic