FROM THE FIGHT AGAINST THE “ENEMY” TO TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE: ON THE COLOMBIAN CASE

Resumo

The Colombian case in the Latin American context is paradigmatic, reflecting the persistence of the armed conflict over several decades. Although the Peace Accords were negotiated in 2016 in Havana, Cuba, with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), corroborated data show that leaders and defenders of human rights have been assassinated after the signing of the Accords. At the same time, new actors have emerged with the rise of Emerging Criminal Bands (BACRIM), made up of dissidents who did not lay down their arms and continue to commit the same acts of barbarity. In this scenario, paramilitarism has not disappeared, and the National Liberation Army (ELN) remains an active part of the conflict. Within this context, this study focuses, from a legal and political perspective, on the shift in approach—from a strong emphasis on the protection of human rights in the fight against the “enemy” to transitional justice through a negotiated peace. The Havana Accords have led to a different turn in the debate, offering an alternative path and a set of exceptional legal norms aimed at achieving a peaceful and negotiated solution. Accordingly, this study develops the basic aspects of the Havana Accords in order to explain the main normative foundations of transitional justice. On the other hand, it also describes how, even within the transitional justice process, the International Criminal Court continues to represent an alternative avenue, given that the commission of crimes in the context of the armed conflict persists. This allows the conclusion that the Colombian case, despite significant advances in the pursuit of peace, remains a complex and unclear scenario regarding the definitive end of the conflict.