Civis

"Yes, conscientious objection is a fundamental right!"

2010-06-30T04:33:35Z

“Colombia must not attempt to justify a further delay in the legalisation of the right to conscientious objection to compulsory military service,” said Derek Brett from Conscience and Peace Tax International organization. Brett was one of four international experts, from the United States, Great Britain, Germany and Ecuador, invited to the International Seminar on 2nd June 2010 at the University of Los Andes, Bogotá, to discuss the issue of compulsory military service and the right to conscientious objection.

“Respect for the conscience and the judgement of citizens is fundamental in every democracy,” added Tom Gerety, lecturer from the Faculty of Law at New York University, in front of an audience of more than 220 people. According to Andreas Speck from War Resisters' International, and in spite of the fact that international legal norms dictate to the contrary, Colombia's youths are obliged to carry out compulsory military service. For example, the 90,000 Colombian youths who were recruited in a single day in December 2009 did not have the right to express opposition and opt out of joining the military.

From left to right: Tom Gerety, Derek Brett, Daniel Bonilla (Andes University)

As a result, in March 2009, an alliance of organizations began legal proceedings citing the unconstitutionality of failing to respect the right to conscientious objection to compulsory military service. Although the Colombian Constitutional Court declared its recognition of this fundamental right in October 2009, the final text has still not been published. Nevertheless, as Derek Brett emphasised: “Conscientious objectors must not be discriminated against, not at any time or under any circumstance.”

Currently, Colombian youths cannot graduate from university or find work if they do not have a military pass. In some areas, soldiers also perform so-called “raids”, in which they pick up youngsters and make them join the military against their will. These have been declared “arbitrary detentions” by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. It is also important to note that in several regions of the country, social inequality forces many disadvantaged young people to take military service due to the lack of any economic alternative.

“No obligation should be placed above a fundamental right,” concluded Brett together with the other international experts. On a global scale, compulsory military service has been abolished in 100 countries. The right to conscientious objection is applied in a further 70 countries. There are only seven countries in the entire world where this right is still not respected. Colombia is one of those countries.

The panel was made up of Tom Gerety, New York University; Derek Brett, Conscience and Peace Tax International; Aquiles Arrieta, Assistant Magistrate at the Constitutional Court; Antonio Menéndez, Legal Coordinator at the United Nations (OACNUDH); Daniel Bonilla, Director of the Group G-Dip at the University of Los Andes; Andreas Speck, representative for War Resisters' International, and Xavier León, conscientious objector from Ecuador who took his case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Conscientious objection in Hammarkullen

2010-06-30T04:21:40Z

At the end of May, Civis participated in the annual Hammarkullen carnival, one of Gothenburg's biggest events. The group of Civis Association members campaigned to support conscientious objectors in Colombia, spreading information about young people's right to conscientiously object to military service.

Hammarkullen is one of the suburbs of Gothenburg and more than half of its population was born abroad. Since its inauguration in 1974, the annual carnival has become a tradition. The event has grown every year and evolved into what is now a multicultural festival and a popular meeting place for people from all over Gothenburg.

It is understandable that Hammarkullen residents are proud of their carnival and neighbourhood. Having so many people from different parts of the world in the area makes the event a colourful display of cultures, music and dances. Held on the last weekend of May, it's a celebration of the diverse population who make up the district.

In addition to the festivities, many local and international organisations participate on the different stages and exhibition stands throughout the carnival. Civis Association was one of the organisations taking part by providing information and pamphlets about the situation for Colombia's youth.

Through discussions and activities with a focus on raising awareness about conscientious objection, Civis managed to reach out to many people who passed by their stand during the event. The result was several new members and signatures for a support letter, which will be sent to Jose Luis, a conscientious objector and one of many young men hiding from the military in Colombia.

Since 2009, the campaign group within Civis has arranged events and study groups on the theme of conscientious objection and kept in contact with the Civis partner organisation in Colombia, ACOOC, though email and videoconferences.

Do you want to become involved in the Civis campaign group and learn more about conscientious objection in Colombia? Contact Karolina Näsman: karolinanasman@hotmail.com

Civis hosts an International seminar on conscientious objection in Barrancabermeja, Magdalena Medio

2010-06-30T04:16:35Z

On June, the 4^th, the seminar “El derecho a la Objeción de conciencia al Servicio Militar Obligatorio, Perspectivas internacionales y nacionales” took place in the city of Barrancabermeja. Historically, the city has severely suffered from the Colombian conflict, as has the whole Magdalena Medio region. The area has a strong tradition of grass-roots organizations that work in the defence of human rights and for peace. The seminar was a collaboration between Civis Association; the youth grass-roots organisation Quinto Mandamiento, which works specifically with Conscientious Objection in Barrancabermeja; Programa de Desarollo y Paz del Magdalena Medio; Espacio de Trabajadores y Trabajadoras de DDHH, and the Alcaldia Municipal de Barrancabermeja. It was the first public seminar on conscientious objection to be held in this region with international guests. The seminar included different aspects of conscientious objection, including at regional, national and international levels, judicial issues and the problems that social organizations have to face when working with this topic.

The purpose of the seminar was to make local people aware of the subject of conscientious objection and the issues of military recruitment in the region. Although Freedom of Conscience, Religion and Thought is part of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) and was signed by the majority of countries, young people both in Colombia and elsewhere face difficulties if they do not want to do military service on the grounds of their conscience.

The seminar also discussed the issue of “batidas”, which is the military's process of illegally and violently recruiting young men who do not present themselves at the legal recruitment sessions and cannot present the correct documentation when searched. This practice is common in the country, not least in the Magdalena Medio region, and is considered to be an “arbitrary detention” by the United Nations.

It also examined what criteria the military forces should apply in the next recruitment session, which is expected to take place this July, as well as the role social organizations and other institutions can play in such situations.

Presentations were made by Tom Gerety from the Department of Law at New York University; Derek Brett, who is the director of Conscience and Peace Tax International, and Xavier León from Ecuador, coordinator of CLAOC, who represented Latin America. Also present from War Resisters' International (WRI) were Pelao Carvallo from Paraguay for the Latin American section and Andreas Speck from the London office.

While Tom Gerety and Derek Brett spoke about the international context, Andreas Speck told the mostly young audience about the work of international, conscientious-objector support networks in countries such as Israel and South Korea. Pelao Carvallo spoke about the anti-militarization work that he has been leading in Chile and Paraguay for many years.

Xavier León told the audience about his experience of being the first publicly declared conscientious objection in Ecuador, and taking his case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It decided that military authorities should not have the power to decide who is a conscientious objector; instead, this judgement should be made by a civilian.

Juan David Casas of Red Juvenil in Medellín provided the Colombian contribution. He explained the rights held by young Colombians when forcibly recruited by the military and told them about the national network of conscientious objectors, ANOOC.

More than 230 people participated in the seminar. They also had the opportunity to hear about the work on conscientious objection that has been undertaken in Barrancabermeja, in particular by the organization Quinto Mandamiento.

The seminar was part of a three-year project financed by Sida. It followed up a similar seminar that had taken place two days earlier to raise the issue of conscientious objection in the capital city.

"We were told we were fighting terrorists..."

2010-06-30T04:14:47Z

This video is part of Communication Material elaborated by Acooc and Cinep, in 2009 for their campaign for the Conscientious objection in Colombia

2010: The Context of Militarisation in Colombia

2010-06-30T04:07:09Z

Find here useful information about the current situation of the armed conflict in Colombia concerning militarisation and compulsory military service, elaborated by our partner organisation ACOOC (Collective Action by Conscientious Objectors).


2010: The Context of Militarisation in Colombia: Download the presentation in PDF format


2010: The Context of Militarisation in Colombia: Download the presentation in OpenOffice.org Impress format


2010: The Context of Militarisation in Colombia: Download presentation in MS PowePoint format

"No discrimination against conscientious objectors!"

2010-06-30T03:23:12Z

No studies, no job, no rights - this can be the overall situation of conscientious objectors in Colombia. Without a "libreta militar" - an identity card proving you have done military service - young people are not allowed to finish their studies and have great difficulties finding a job. But, what are the international standards that have been set in relation to conscientious objection? The answers are here - part of the presentation by Derek Brett, director of Conscience and Peace Tax International (CPTI) in Geneva, Switzerland, held on the 2nd June 2010 in Bogotá Colombia, during the International Conference organized by Civis, Andes, Acooc and Cinep.

In general, what must legislation include to meet international standards?

Firstly, information must be readily available to all persons affected by military service about the possibility to be a recognized conscientious objector and the procedures to follow in order to exercise that right.
Secondly and ideally, conscientious objection should be accepted on the basis of a declaration alone, without any tribunal to investigate the objection. But if this is not deemed possible, any such tribunal must be independent of the military and there must be no discrimination whatsoever against conscientious objectors on the basis of their individual beliefs, whether these are of a religious, moral, humanitarian or ideological nature.
In particular, it must be noted that conscientious objection is by definition an individual right, not a collective one. It is not only available to members of churches with a pacifist theology, or members of conscientious objection or pacifist movements. It is available to all persons who are faced with military service as an individual right.
Similarly, there can be no arbitrary time limits for registering a conscientious objection. Someone may come forward after they have been taken into the army and then claim to be a conscientious objector. Their objection must then be considered. Indeed, if they have finished their military service, and are called up for reserve duties, they can also say, “No, I am now a conscientious objector.” This is based on one of the basic principles of the Universal Declaration and International Covenant that the fundamental right of freedom of thought, conscience and belief also includes the freedom to change ones' religion or belief.
Next, there must be no subsequent civil disadvantages for conscientious objectors compared with those who have taken military service. In particular where (as in Colombia) the “libreta militar” is a essential document, there must be an equivalent document of equal status at the same charge (if any) for conscientious objectors who have not performed military service.
Any punishment arising from conscientious objection to military service is a violation of the freedom of thought, conscience, belief, and religion. Punishments, therefore, can only apply when the state concerned has not accepted someone's claim to be a conscientious objector and the objector persists with it, or, when the objector, for whatever reason, refuses to co-operate with the requirements of the relevant legislation. And, as is the case in Colombia identified by the UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that under no circumstances should conscientious objectors be imprisoned or detained.
Finally, the international standards do not require that conscientious-objector conscripts must perform an alternative or substitute civilian service. This is simply a concession to states, which had been assured from the very beginning that civilian service for conscientious objectors would be a type of forced labour and related to military service.
If, however, there is an alternative service for conscientious objectors, it must be compatible with the individual reasons for the conscientious objection. Some people may be quite happy to serve in the army, as long as they're not carrying weapons. Others may not want to do anything that even indirectly aids the military effort or replaces the work that military personnel might otherwise do.
All such arrangements must be under civilian control. And must be in the public interest. You cannot farm conscientious objectors out to profit-making enterprises and say that this is a valid alternative service.
And finally, the duration, pay and all other conditions of work in alternative service must not be discriminatory in comparison with military service. Any differences must be objectively justified according to the individual case. The Human Rights Committee decided in 1999 against France in a case brought by conscientious objector Foin by this yardstick.

Derek Brett is director of Conscience and Peace Tax International (CPTI), a non-governmental organisation holding a special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations.

International law and conscientious objection: what does it say?

2010-06-30T03:14:42Z

What do we mean by the right to conscientious objection to military service and by international standards? Derek Brett, director of Conscience and Peace Tax International (CPTI), explained details during the International Conference which took place on the 2nd June 2010 in Bogotá, Colombia: "The concept of conscientious objection as a right has subsequently been derived from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed by the United Nations in 1948. That article reads that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

There are two points to this.

One is how the right has been established through international agreements and jurisprudence.

The second is how the standards have been developed at international level within this framework. It's worth noting that states' early conscientious objection to military service legislation was actually a pragmatic response to the difficulty created by people who were not prepared to fight—particularly in times of conscription in world wars—and what exactly you did about them. It was a question of what we did with these people, rather than a question of rights.

The concept of conscientious objection as a right has subsequently derived from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed by the United Nations in 1948. That article states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
There was a reference to the right of conscientious objection to military service in the post-war German Constitution, adopted in 1949. This was not specifically mentioned in the Universal Declaration, nor in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which in the mid-1960s turned the principles of the Universal Declaration into a binding treaty. That reflects the fact that there were very few countries that had brought in legislation allowing conscientious objectors to be exempted from military service at that time.
The first authoritative interpretation of the right of freedom of thought, conscience and belief as including conscientious objection to military service came in the General Comment Number 22, which was passed as recently as 1993 by the Human Rights Committee. For its supervision, it was set up within the International Covenant. In the article's General Comment, the Committee said that it believed that a right of conscientious objection to military service, could be derived from Article 18, in that the obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one's religion or beliefs.
There was no persuasive force in place in international law until 2006, when the Human Rights Committee decided on an individual case regarding two Jehovah's Witnesses from South Korea, who had served 18-months prison sentences. It found that under Article 18 of the International Covenant, South Korea, or any state, was obliged to take into account genuine conscientious objections to participation in military service. The committee firmed up this jurisprudence in March 2010.
The elaboration of standards has very largely taken place within the former Commission on Human Rights in the United Nations, which has been replaced by the Human Rights Council, and their resolution in 1998, Resolution 1998-77. It incorporates almost all of the significant items of international standards reached by the UN Commission.
The elaboration of standards has also been followed up by the expert Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which reported to the Commission and now reports to the Human Rights Council, and by specific findings of the Human Rights Committee, when dealing with reports from individual states, and also in some other acts of its individual jurisprudence.

Derek Brett is director of Conscience and Peace Tax International (CPTI), a non-governmental organisation in special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations.

“I Only Want Respect”

2010-06-30T03:06:28Z

Brutality, violence and abuse: the picture presented by the media is that violence among young people is increasing in Gothenburg as well as in the rest of the world. The statistics say otherwise, but are inconsistent. What is the true picture? During 2010, the Museum of World Culture in Gothenburg houses the exhibition “I only want respect – young people's experiences and stories of violence”.

At the exhibition you hear young people's own stories and experiences of violence: as victim, perpetrator, witness, helper or kin. The stories are sometimes very personally told by those involved in the events.

It is clear that young people are less inclined to report crimes and testify about violent events. The police have a widespread image of not investigating events. Is it really deserved? What is the truth? What is the responsibility and role of society, police, school and parents? These are some issues raised in the exhibition.

One side event to the exhibition was a three-hour Respect Marathon at which individuals and organisations gave their views about what "respect" means to them. Civis was one of the participants in the event, and gave a presentation based on the voices and declarations of conscientious objectors in Colombia and their right to refuse to engage in the armed conflict.

To visit the exhibition's website, click here

Which are our objectives?

2010-05-03T18:07:14Z

The main objective of the Civis Association is to contribute to the ((Building a Culture of a sustainable Peace)) by supporting and strengthening non-violent actions of young people and their initiatives to enhance the promotion and defense of human rights and thus bring about the construction of a fairer, more equitable and democratic society.

Nuestra visión

La visión de Civis es crear puentes entre distintos actores a nivel regional, nacional e internacional que permita el intercambio de conocimientos, recursos y respaldo político con el fin de contribuir a la construcción de una sociedad más justa, equitativa y con el pleno reconocimiento de los derechos de los y las jóvenes. El programa de la Asociación se basa en un intercambio mutuo de conocimientos y saberes, donde la teoría se relaciona con la práctica en temas relativos a la solución negociada del conflicto armado interno y en la facilitación de espacios para el intercambio académico, de experiencias y metodologías para la paz y de la resolución constructiva de conflictos.

Nuestros ejes de trabajo

Cooperación sobre el terreno en Colombia

• Apoyar iniciativas civiles y juveniles que promuevan la participación política y social de los y las jóvenes como población marginalizada. En particular, impulsar el fortalecimiento de la capacidad institucional y organizacional de los procesos juveniles. Los proyectos se desarrollan en la actualidad en Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Buenaventura y en las regiones de Cundinamarca, Magdalena Medio, Putumayo y Meta.

Incidencia

• Promover condiciones políticas y sociales que permitan lograr una paz sostenible y un mayor respeto a los derechos humanos a través de la concertación con organizaciones e instituciones colombianas, suecas e internacionales. Estas acciones quieren visibilizar y dar a conocer la realidad que vive la población juvenil y el desafío que afrontan las sociedades y sus seres humanos en conflicto para generar un mayor compromiso a nivel nacional e internacional con la construcción de una sociedad pacífica. Se trabaja en coordinación y a través de la participación activa en redes como el Diálogo Inter–Agencial en Colombia (DIAL); la Mesa de Cooperación para el Seguimiento al Conflicto y a la situación de Derechos Humanos de Jóvenes, Niños y Niñas de Bogotá y Cundinamarca; la Mesa Internacional de Complementariedad del Magdalena Medio (MIC) y el Grupo de Colombia igual que la Oficina Internacional de Derechos Humanos – Acción Colombia (OIDHACO).

Intercambio para la Paz

• Promover la construcción de una Cultura de Paz sostenible a través de la formación e intercambio de conocimientos, experiencias y métodos con el fin de desarrollar habilidades y actitudes para facilitar la resolución pacífica de conflictos. Los encuentros también facilitan el diálogo entre organizaciones sociales, líderes juveniles, investigadores de paz y funcionarios de instituciones nacionales e internacionales.

CIVIS NEWS: Justice. Justice. Justice.

Comunicación Civis — 2010-04-10T14:00:00Z

Interview with Danilo Rueda, member of the Inter-Ecclesial Commission of Justice and Peace

The Inter-Ecclesial Commission for Justice and Peace (in Spanish: Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz CIJyP), based in Bogotá, is a human rights organization with an outstanding history in Colombia. The organization accompanies victims, rural communities, Afro-Colombians and indigenous people in order to defend their fundamental rights and during the process of recovering their territory in different regions of Colombia.

CIJyP has been Civis' partner organization for more than three years, with project activities wn Buenaventura, located on the Pacific Coast. The main objective of the project is to promote the prevention of recruitment and to create alternative life projects for young people in difficult neighborhoods.

Civis: In the beginning of 2010, CIJyP made a press release denouncing a media campaign including false accusations and harassment against the organization. Could you please tell us about the background to this campaign and the facts around it?

CIJyP: To begin with, we have to consider that the national context plays a significant role. In early 2009, through the Colombian magazine SEMANA it was publicly known that the Administrative Department of State Security (in Spanish DAS) – which is directly subordinated to the President of the Republic, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, had founded a so-called G3 group.

The G3 group was created to control and to carry out offensive actions against human rights organizations, political opponents as well as judges within the Colombian Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was investigating individuals close to the government circle because of their links with paramilitary groups. There are even members of the same governmental sector which are tied to this criminal strategy.

Civis: When did the work of the G3 group start?

CIJyP: This intelligence work, that is giving information to the state via illegal actions, started operations in 2003. Information was collected by illegally tapping phone calls and emails, registering all the movements of human rights organizations.

In particular, one of these investigations is related to the work we carry out in the regions where you can find a clear connection between paramilitary operations, forced displacement of the population and extractive business operations. We have, for example, verified information that indicates ties between a lawyer of a local lumber company and an international company – providing information to the intelligence service about our activities and about the community members.

Civis: What kind of connection did you detect between military intelligence work and the media campaign against your organization?

CIJyP: In 2003, when the so-called G3 group started its activities, there was a press conference organized by a Colombian Army General, Jorge Enrique Mora Rangel, in which they launched multiple accusations against us. They said that we are linked to the guerrilla group FARC, that we commit serious human rights violations and that we have created "concentration camps" in the different regions we work.

What is the background of this media campaign? It is the creation of a prosecution against our organization with information from paid or false witnesses in order to prevent us from exercising our human right to denounce and to search for the truth. It also aims to undermine all the evidence that we have started to collect about connections between the 17th Brigade of the Colombian Army[1] and paramilitary structures.

Civis: What happened after 2003?

CIJyP: The experience that we had to go through during 2003 was reedited, yet they added a new element. The responsible actors of the actions in 2003 now returned acting in a slightly different way. They reappeared on October 5th of 2008, when the public was informed through the TV news about a tapped phone call between Army General Rito Alejo del Rio, who is currently in prison, and the former Minister of Internal Affairs, Fernando Londoño. During the call they express the need for, and ultimately announced the launching of, a media campaign against our Justice and Peace Commission.

Why a media campaign? Because by doing this, all existing calls for responsibility for crimes against humanity hanging over the above mentioned General Rito Alejo del Rio, won't be valid any more. It makes the prosecution office no longer trust the accusations made against him. The charges would ultimately become an element of justification, telling us that behind the judicial accusation lie only a simple accusation against his persona, to delegitimize him, and he would appear as an angel.

Civis: How does he want to achieve that?

CIJyP: By permanently publishing false messages like: The Commission for Justice and Peace steals money, the Commission for Justice and Peace maintains “concentration camps”, the Commission for Justice and Peace accompany humanitarian zones that are part of the FARC strategy, saying that our organization is responsible for the crimes committed in the region. To say publicly that the Commission of Justice and Peace is responsible for the forced displacement was a strategy to divert the public attention.

It was a way to twist clear facts and legal arguments, which proves General Rito Alejo del Rio to be responsible. In a few words: What exists behind the media campaign is the promotion of impunity of a military authority that is responsible of crimes against humanity.

Furthermore, this implies something else. For example, in the case of the region Bajo Atrato[2], it is about avoiding the restitution of illegal and forced property takeovers by paramilitary structures, structures which continue to operate together with the 17th Brigade and the 15th Brigade of the Colombian Army. Finally, it is a way to make the presence of a democratic and constitutional state in Colombia impossible.

Civis: What has happened since late 2009 and early 2010?

CIJyP: The current media campaign, which is similar to the one in 2003, began with an article in the American WALL STREET JOURNAL in which they accused us of being part of the FARC strategy. Simultaneously in the Colombian press, columnists and other journalists who have worked with the national government, such as Jose Obdulio Gaviria, the president´s advisor[3], who accuses us of being members of the FARC, and therefore of being part of a criminal strategy. This media campaign implies a higher level of public exposure of us, putting us at a high risk as paramilitary operations permitted by the Brigades of the Colombian Army exist in the regions where we work.

In fact, threats made through the media campaign have also resulted in concrete actions. Our staff in the department of Putumayo received death threats via text messages on their cell phones. This occurred just at the same time as we highlighted links between members of the 11th Brigade of the Colombian Army, the 11th Battalion Selva del Putumayo and paramilitary structures in the region. Because of the high level of insecurity, staff members had to leave the area. We have received death threats in the past which affected us but we have always remained in the regions.

Recently we have detected a new phase of the campaign of false accusations. This phase is simply a public smear- and discredits campaign that seeks to erode existing public confidence in our work. Furthermore, it seeks to undermine the confidence and credibility that international institutions like the Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court of Human Rights have for our organization and our investigation work.

The campaign against us tends to generate skepticism and distance to our statements concerning the responsibility of business operations, benefiting from paramilitary activities (paramilitary activities that could only have been undertaken with the consent by military forces).

Civis: Regarding the situation of the systematic harassment, what kind of action has CIJyP taken in its defense?

CIJyP: In the first place we have to deal with death threats on an internal, personal level. We have to face the fears and analyze the effects of these threats. Secondly, as an organization we have to review our protection mechanisms, because we believe that once false accusations ceases, it can lead to physical attacks against our personal integrity. Not right now, but indeed later on. Thirdly, we denounce publicly what is happening, highlighting the precautionary measures that the Inter-American System has required from the Colombian government, which is to establish certain levels of dialogue. We say clearly: we know who is behind all of this. There are militaries, former militaries and businessmen benefiting from paramilitary activity and drug dealers that do not want to give back the legally owned ancestral territory to the victims where the land will be used differently than has been the case historically in the area.

Civis: You mentioned reviews of your internal strategies. What can be done to support the work of CIJyP from an external level, for example from the Swedish community?

CIJyP: First, if the Swedish government has funded and supported the demobilization process of the paramilitary groups in Colombia, it should demand accountability of the impact that the demobilization have had on the victims. The example of the Bajo Atrato, the case of Putumayo where we have been threatened over the past two years, as well as the case of the Naya Community[4] reflect that the demobilization process was not real, that there has been a reengineering of the paramilitaries structures. The Swedish government should ask the Colombian government for accountability naming specific cases that are documented or already part of judicial investigations.

Secondly, the Swedish government should pay attention to existing intelligence work undertaken by the Colombian state because it is even possible that their efforts to support peace initiatives in Colombia are being regarded as part of a FARC strategy. In that sense we believe that the Swedish government can play a vital role for the protection of human rights defenders by analyzing the process of the paramilitary demobilization.

And thirdly, to ask for political intervention in order to stop the impunity in regard to our persecution. There has not been a single investigation since 1997 until today, although we have been systematically persecuted, received written invitations for our own funerals, there was an attempt of forced disappearance, one attempt of physical attack in the city of Bogotá and one kidnapping. No single investigation has been carried out since 1997.

For more information please check: http://justiciaypazcolombia.com/