March 1, 2011
Representative to the House places on record Iván Cepeda about the danger of 5 points on the initiative. If not modified would refuse the rights of victims.
1. Be recognized as victims only those persons who suffered violation of their rights from 1986 and the plunder case of those who were victimazados after 1991. Be excluded as well, over 9,000 people and would no longer restore more than one hundred thousand hectares of land.
2. To the victims of dispossession and forced abandonment be denied the physical delivery of the land and return in exchange for an income, with priority to beneficiaries of the dispossession.
3. Be unknown the foundation and nature of remedial measures, since it would take measures to assist repair and humanitarian aid.
4. The bill would miss the fundamental character of the right to compensation by submitting the effective enforcement of the law of the State budgetary reasons.
5. Unrecognized foundation repair, which lies in the responsibility of the State.
Before the presentation of the paper for third reading of victims' bill, the House Representative for Bogota Iván Cepeda Castro ruled against this bill, "there are five issues of particular gravity that contains the paper, the not be changed which would involve the denial of the rights of victims, for that reason I put in the public knowledge of the speakers and the government one by one the five points. During the presentation of this bill and prior to it, I have stressed the social and political relevance of the adoption of a law guaranteeing the rights of victims, however, can not support an initiative that language under repair persists in denying the right to reparation, in the interests of the beneficiaries of the dispossession and excludes a significant section of those have actually been victimized "
The text of this project was filed today by the speakers of Senate Committee I, for third debate. Alternative Democratic Pole will do everything possible to remedy the problems presented by this initiative.
Then develop each of the five problems mentioned above: 1. Negation of the principle of universality and promotion of a revisionist reading of history
The bill defining the universe of victims, which restricts people victimized since 1986, a situation that is worse for the victims of dispossession and neglect compulsion, for only recognize those who suffered the violation of their rights since 1991. Delimitation
contravention of the principle of universality, and causes an effect revisionist memory of the country. By ignoring the existence of victims prior to 1986 was symbolically removed the origins of political violence that exists today, negating facts so important to the history as: the genocide of the Patriotic Union, the taking and retaking of the Palace of Justice and the founding of paramilitary massacres.
In quantitative terms, according to the database "Colombia Never Again", an initiative made up of NGOs, at least 8,959 people were victimized between 1966 to 1985 by state agents and paramilitary forces would be excluded, and where dispossession under with data from the Monitoring Committee to the Public Policy Forced Displacement, at least 102,403 ha. stripped land from 1980 to 1985 remain in the hands of his remains.
2. Denial of material restitution of land, the return and the right to restitution of
Regarding restitution, the text introduces Article 102 of the surface rights over the land or land subject to restitution or formalization which are established farming systems, livestock, forestry or agroforestry and / or processing plants and processing of raw materials.
His owner (the Fund Unit Stripped Land Restitution, or the opposition in good faith that have established production systems) would have the right to use, enjoy and dispose of production systems, including plantations and / or buildings that have risen above the property returned or executed by a certain time, appropriating the benefits and products they generate, from paying the stripped (bare owner) or fee income, and deliver the property upon completion of the term or condition, together with the buildings and plantations have been established on it.
to include this provision would be committing three errors by the legislature: 1. Be unknown to the restitution law, 2. Would act against property rights as fundamental rights in the case of victims of dispossession and forced abandonment, which is linked to other rights, such as food, housing and decent life, and 3. Since the state would favor big business beneficiaries of the dispossession, who maintained their production systems, and thus would prevent the return of good material and the return of the population, thus strengthening the deterritorialization of the peasantry.
in addition to restitution, the Senate continues to deny the right to restitution housing and property contained in the international principles on the matter 1, which are part of the Colombian legal system, since, as reiterated by the Constitutional Court "are part of the block of constitutionality, by virtue of Article 93 of the Constitution. "
The restitution of housing, land and heritage is a matter of justice. The victims of dispossession and neglect have not only lost their land. According to the Monitoring Committee for Public Policy on Forced Displacement, "83% of IDPs registered in the Registry of Displaced Population (RUPD) lost a well (excluding home furnishings): 72% animals, machinery and equipment 50%, 42% land, 32% crops, 24% production infrastructure and 19% non-rural real estate. Similarly, 78% of the population registered in the RUPD lost some good in 63% animals, machinery and equipment 45%, 36% land, permanent crops 23%, 17% real estate and non-rural 16% productive infrastructure "2
2. Confusion
measures
The bill ignores the difference that must exist between the measures of reparation, assistance and humanitarian aid, which have the nature, source and goals. Remedial measures are taken as assistance measures (credit, liabilities and housing allowance) and is devoted humanitarian law 418 of 1997 as administrative compensation. In practice, this situation would lead to the absurd claim that the victim has received a housing allowance-measure that can access the so-called vulnerable populations, has already been repaired.
3. Fiscal Sustainability
The Congress discusses the legislation whereby amending sections 334, 339 and 346 of the Constitution, which hopes to raise to constitutional status fiscal sustainability as a principle, holding the actions of all branches of government to this end. Legislative act in our consideration is unconstitutional as tending towards replacing the constitution, redefining the scope and meaning itself of the rule of law. Would alter the system of protection of fundamental rights, it would imply that the acts and actions planned should be back in the state's resources to any project or decision which affects the national budget.
In this sense the bill subject compliance with the standard fiscal sustainability, which means to depend on the effective enforcement of budgetary reasons, even forgetting the fundamental nature of the right to redress, rights that are mandatory and immediate compliance to the Colombian State.
4. Grounds for denial of compensation: State responsibility
eludes Bill set out the basis for the repair, and in a manner contrary reiterates the lack of any responsibility by the State.
According to international law of human rights the State must compensate the victims for two reasons, when the state is directly responsible for violations committed either by act or omission, that is, when defaults on its obligation respect, establishing a limit of their actions, and second, because of its duty as guarantor, which implies government conduct to ensure the prevention, investigation, punishment and reparation for the violations.
While recognition of the remedial measures recognized in the law does not mean a recognition of the responsibility of State agents for a single unlawful damage, the Colombian State must accept its share of responsibility in human rights violations have occurred in the country. And their responsibility for violations committed by private persons when the State failed to comply with the duty of guarantee.
deny the responsibility of the State, is ethically, morally, politically and legally reprehensible. A first step to reconciliation is to accept that in Colombia, human rights violations have been serious, massive and systematic, and that therefore the State must compensate on the basis of non-compliance with their obligations to protect, respect and security.
Angelino Garzón Vice President in his address to the Human Rights Council United Nations yesterday in relation to bill victims for restitution of land and said: "The presentation of this Act unambiguously reflects the political will national government to give higher priority to the victims and punish the perpetrators. Only in this way can we move towards a path of forgiveness and reconciliation with the prospect of peace. " It is therefore necessary that the political will is translated in driving the adoption of concrete measures to ensure the effective return of land and retention of those who are restored to their territories and of reparation measures proportionate to the harm suffered.
The representative Ivan Cepeda and the Polo Democrático Alternativo, continue to insist on a bill to set international standards on the subject and the demands of the victims.
More information: Ana Jimena Bautista
Office Revelo R. Ivan Cepeda Castro
Cel: 3154637817
0 comments:
Post a Comment