Colombia’s three terrorist organizations—the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), National Liberation Army (ELN), and United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)—were responsible for some 3,500 murders in 2002. By February, President Pastrana had broken off three-year-old peace talks—a cornerstone of his presidency—with Colombia’s largest terrorist organization, the 16,000-member FARC. That month, the group’s abduction of a Colombian Senator during an airliner hijacking proved to be the incident that led to the collapse of the discussions. In addition to ending the dialogue, Pastrana also terminated the group’s despeje, or demilitarized zone, where the FARC had been allowed to exist without government interference during the deliberations[1].

 

The inauguration of President Alvaro Uribe on 7 August 2002 set the stage for an intensified war on domestic terrorism. The FARC carried out errant mortar attacks on a military facility and the Presidential Palace—with heads of state and high-level representatives from many nations in attendance—resulting in the deaths of 21 residents of a poor Bogota neighborhood near the Palace. President Uribe has proposed pension and labor reforms and has imposed a government austerity program, as well as a one-time “wealth tax,” to improve Bogota’s fiscal ability to prosecute its war on terrorism. Bogota’s goal is to increase government defense spending from 3.2 percent of gross domestic product to more than five percent. Colombia is party to four of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism.

In 2002, as in years past, Colombia endured more kidnappings (roughly 3,000) than any other country in the world. Ransom payments and extortion fees demanded by the primary perpetrators of kidnapping—the FARC and ELN— continued to hobble the Colombian economy and limit investor confidence and became an important source of terrorism financing. Since 1980, the FARC has murdered at least 10 US citizens, and three New Tribes Missionaries abducted by the FARC in 1993 remain unaccounted for[2].

Throughout 2002, Colombia was highly cooperative in blocking terrorist assets. Bogota created the Financial Information and Analysis Unit, to combat money laundering. Bogota also has been very responsive to US requests for extradition. As of 6 December, Colombia had extradited 29 Colombian citizens to the United States during 2002, with 26 additional cases pending. Of the six FARC members indicted for the capture and killing in 1999 of three US peace activists, one has been apprehended. Three other FARC members not included in the original indictment were arrested in November 2002 in connection with the murders. The FARC and the AUC continued their practice of massacring one another’s alleged supporters, especially in areas where they were competing for narcotics-trafficking corridors and prime coca-growing terrain. FARC and ELN attacks on oil pipelines and other infrastructure vital to the Colombian economy continued as well, although at a reduced level.

As in past years, the on-again, off-again peace talks between Bogota and the ELN did not lead to substantive breakthroughs. The AUC disbanded itself and subsequently reorganized during 2002. It continued to press for political recognition by the Colombian Government and, as of 1 December, began a unilateral cease-fire that included most of the elements that fall under the AUC’s umbrella.

Antiterrorism Amendment (2003) and Antiterrorist Law (2004)

In Colombia, an antiterrorism law was enacted at the end of the year 2003[3]. Under the anti-terrorism law approved by the Senate on Dec. 10, the armed forces will be able to arrest people for up to 36 hours[4], search homes, and spy on private communications without a legal warrant or judicial oversight[5]. The new legislation also foresees the creation of a new registry containing private information on all Colombians, to which military authorities will have access. In addition, the armed forces will be given police powers, including the authority to interrogate suspects.

The law has many implications but specifically for privacy and data protection. The Bill is not yet fully operative, because it has to be regulated by statutory laws and the Constitutional Court must give its assent to the procedural forms of the amendment. Implications for data protection will come from the faculty of the government to establish a census or residence of citizens as it is planned.

Description of the Antiterrorist Bill.-

The newly amended article 15 of the Constitution still guarantees privacy and intimacy. And requires a warrant to enter the home or read letters, but a new addition provides that a new law may establish how and when the administrative authorities would be able to restrict this right without judicial order in cases of terrorism.

Section 28 of the Constitution was also amended. This provision provided that individual can only be arrested by a judicial order and with a clear motive, and must be sent to the judge within 36 hours of the detention.

The amendment adds that a new law shall provide the way in which administrative authorities can detain individuals only in cases of terrorism with the purposes of identification and home search, with notice to the Attorney General and a judicial control later (no prior judicial authorization or warrant is required).

Finally, section 250 of the Constitution is amended by establishing that the Attorney General may investigate terrorism by creating special units integrated by members of the police  and members of the military, together under its direction and coordination.

On July 2004 the Colombian Legislature enacted the antiterrorist statute (see text in Spanish included in Annex)[6]. Currently, the statute is being examined by the constitutional Court of Colombia.

The object of the law is to regulate the 2003 amendments to prevent terrorist acts. The law provides that authorities may be able to act without judicial order only in limited cases when based on serious motives linking the activity to a terrorist organization (section 2). The seriousness of these motives must be documented in reports with credibility and based on objective facts. Under the new law, mere suspicious are not serious motives (section 3). Authorities include the military (section 4). Notice to the attorney general must be provided every time (section 5).

 

Once a suspected is arrested, he must be contacted with the Prosecutor and the Judge within the term of 36 hours (section 6).

 

Written orders to wiretap and search and seizure of homes without judicial order must be in written only to avoid terrorist acts (section 8). A report to Congress every year must be fulfilled by the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General about the use of this law, containing a detailed list of persons and assets related to the procedures of the law and the motives for their arrest or seizure and the consequences for terrorist networks. A quarterly report must be sent to Congress (section 9).

These orders must respect the secrecy of journalist and its sources (section 10). Under section 11 all citizens will have to register themselves in a registry (informes de residencia). Any person in the zone of residency must have some identification and notify the authorities of their residence. The use of this information is limited to terrorist investigations (section 16). Under section 17 of the law any person shall have access to this information and to require changes in his profile.

Critics to the antiterrorism law

This amendment has received many critics.

Rocio Bautista, president of the Association of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared (ASFADDES), said that the anti-terrorism legislation passed by Congress constitutes "a grave setback in terms of legislation on forced disappearance". In the year 2000, after 12 years of efforts by human rights groups and the families of the disappeared, Congress finally passed law 589, which classifies forced disappearance as a criminal offence and creates mechanisms for its prevention and eradication --achievements that will be weakened by the new law[7]. Bautista said the new law was passed against the recommendations of international human rights bodies, which expressed their opposition to the granting of police powers to the military: on Nov. 18, the United Nations Committee Against Torture called on the Colombian government of President Alvaro Uribe to reconsider the possibility of adopting measures that would grant judicial police functions to the military and allow lengthy interrogations and arrests of suspects without a legal order or judicial oversight.

The Committee Against Torture, tasked with preventing the practices prohibited by the Convention Against Torture, of which Colombia is a signatory, set a one-year deadline for the state to report on compliance with its recommendation. According to ASFADDES, the new law could fuel an increase in forced disappearances, and will limit, "in a grave manner, the mechanisms and guarantees in place for victims and their families." The problem, says the human rights group, is that "the very same state agents that could be involved in alleged human rights abuses will be in charge of carrying out the investigations, and collecting and handling evidence."

Gustavo Gallon, president of the Colombian Commission of Jurists (CCJ), said the enactment of the new law is disturbing at a time when "the polarization has reached the extent that the Colombian government is stigmatizing not only ordinary people opposed to its policies," but leading international authorities on human rights as well. Gallon was specifically referring to an incident that occurred earlier in the year 2003, when then-defence minister Marta Ramirez said U.N. Special Representative to Colombia James LeMoyne had "defended the terrorists.". That remark came after Lemoyne told reporters that "the backbone of the FARC Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia -- the main guerrilla group consists of between 1,000 and 1,500 ideologically committed men and women who have been fighting for 15 to 20 years". The CCJ has documented a number of arbitrary detentions of human rights defenders, trade unionists and other social activists. According to the CCJ, the common denominator in such cases is that despite the joint efforts of the security forces and the office of the public prosecutor, no evidence is found against the detainees to press charges, nor is there any sign of a serious judicial investigation of their cases. Furthermore, many of the arrests are carried out with the participation of hooded individuals who point to the people to be detained, and on many opportunities the detainees are released shortly after being hauled in, due to a lack of evidence of any wrongdoing or crime.

The current representative in Colombia of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), Michael Fruhling, said that the government and Congress had approved the new anti-terrorism law against the opinion of the office he heads in Colombia. Fruhling said many aspects of the new legislation invade the privacy of citizens and amount to an abuse of basic human rights. He also said that giving the military judicial police powers was in violation of international human rights treaties signed by Colombia, and would debilitate the independence of the judiciary. The colombian antiterrorist law was closely followed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights[8].

But Carlos Franco, director of President Uribe's human rights programme, said that "no human rights convention prohibits granting judicial police functions to the security forces."[9].

European External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten on Wednesday on visit to Colombia heared complaints that an counter-terrorist campaign waged by the government has violated human rights. Patten went into meetings with leaders of local and international human rights groups to prepare for his upcoming talks with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The European Union as well and the United Nations have taken a dim view of an anti-terrorism law adopted by the Colombian Congress which grants the military some judicial powers as it wages its war against leftist rebel groups. Patten has urged Colombian authorities to ensure their counter-terrorist campaign not be marred by human rights abuses[10].

The Federación Internacional de Derechos Humanos (FIDH) has complained that the bill, under the pretext of combating terrorism, limited severely the fundamental rights established in the Constitution[11].

Finally, at a seminar at the U.S.-based Carter Centre, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said that while it is natural to want to defend people, the Bush administration's post-9/11 laws have "worked against the spirit of human rights". "We have encouraged governments to tighten up on state control -- and freedom of speech," he said. In a report released on Nov. 2003, the Carter Centre criticized two countries -Eritrea and Colombia- for violating civil liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism[12].