Series on the rights of the victims and the application of Law 975. Bulletin No 5

1. COMISIÓN COLOMBIANA DE JURISTAS Con el apoyo de:
Organización no gubernamental con status consultivo ante la ONU
Filial de la Comisión Internacional de Juristas (Ginebra) y de la Comisión Andina de Juristas (Lima)
PERSONERÍA JURÍDICA: RESOLUCIÓN 1060, AGOSTO DE 1988 DE LA ALCALDÍA MAYOR DE BOGOTÁ
UNIÓN EUROPEA
Bulletin No 5: Series on the Rights of Victims and the Application of Law 975
The CCJ Calls on the Prosecutor General’s Office to Modify the
Adopted Procedure to Summon Victims of Paramilitary Groups
The Prosecutor General’s Office (Fiscalía General de la Nación) is calling on the
victims of the paramilitaries to participate in the criminal cases pursuant to Law 975
of 2005 by means of almost surreptitious notices. These notices are being
disseminated in media that are not readily available to the bulk of the victims of
violence in the country. The Prosecutor Office also seems to ignore the high-risk
situation that most victims face and the lack of security conditions to present
criminal claims in Colombia.
To date, the Office of the Prosecutor has called on the victims of the following
paramilitaries to come forward: Wilson Salazar Carrascal, alias “El Loro”; Juan
Francisco Márquez Prada, “amongst various aliases” “Juancho Prada”; and
Salvatore Mancuso Gómez, alias “Mono Mancuso”, “Santander Lozada” or “Triple
Cero”.
First of all, any request calling for victim participation in these criminal proceedings
should be emitted through the mass media at the national level (mainly, radio and
television). However, the Office of the Prosecutor has opted to place this notice on
one sole occasion in a national newspaper, regional radio stations and the internet.
Constant notices via radio and television would facilitate their effective
transmission to a wider audience, particularly victims, who (quite often) have no
access to either newspapers or the internet. Moreover, the fact that a paramilitary
member demobilized in a particular region does not mean that he acted only in this
region or that their victims are concentrated in one particular area. This is only one
more reason to ensure national coverage.
Secondly, the Prosecutor’s Office is restricting the direct involvement of victims in
the criminal processes. Once the notice or summons has been made public, the
Prosecutor’s Office has established a 20 working-day period in which victims
should present themselves. The Prosecutor’s Office apparently understands that,
after the 20-day period, the Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría del Pueblo) will
generically assume the protection of the interests of the victims that did come
forward.
Calle 72 Nº 12-65 piso 7 PBX: (571) 3768200 – (571) 3434710 Fax : (571) 3768230
Email : ccj@coljuristas.org Website: www.coljuristas.org
Bogotá, Colombia

2. The first notices were made public on September 29, 2006. This fact raises the
question of whether the Prosecutor’s Office is expecting the Office of the
Ombudsman to represent the interest of all the victims of Salvatore Mancuso that
do not come forward previous to October 31.
This type of procedure is too restrictive, particularly if one considers that many
victims will not be informed of the notices; others have serious limitations to leave
their homes in rural areas; and many people will simply not show up at the
proceedings as a result of extended fear.
Notwithstanding, the 20-day period that has been defined by the Prosecutor’s
Office should not be understood as a peremptory norm. This time limit has no
legal backing. Therefore, if a victim decides to come forward after the 20-day limit,
and the criminal process is ongoing, that person will have to be admitted as a party
in the respective action.
Third and last, the way in which the Office of the Prosecutor is offering information
regarding the paramilitary members that are seeking the benefits of the Law on
Justice and Peace is misleading and restricts the rights to truth and justice.
For example, in the case Salvatore Mancuso Gómez, the notice that was produced
by the Office of the Prosecutor describes him as a demobilized paramilitary of the
Catatumbo Unit, a regional military contingent of the AUC that operated in the
Department of Norte de Santander. In fact, Mancuso operated nation-wide and is
known to have conducted paramilitary activity even previous to the formal
constitution of the AUC.
Notwithstanding Salvatore Mancuso’s case (which is recognized nationally), other
paramilitaries that are being presented in the notices for victim recognition are
largely unknown, for example the paramilitary alias “El Loro”. Similarly, in the case
of the other paramilitary, Juan Francisco Márquez Prada, the Prosecutor’s Office
recognizes that he operated under various aliases, but fails to provide them.
Victims of these types of violations do not know the perpetrators by their name and
often they do not know their faces. In the best of worlds, they might recognize an
alias. The type of notice proves, once again, to be ineffective.
The obligation to determine who is responsible for the heinous crimes perpetrated
in Colombia rests on the judicial authorities. The responsibility cannot be shifted to
the victims, who live under precarious security conditions. The Colombian State
has the obligation to investigate, try and punish the perpetrators.
Considering the previous issues and recalling the recent Constitutional Court’s
decision on the Law of Justice and Peace (C-370 of 2006), the CCJ warns that the
2

3. procedure that is being used by the Office of the Prosecutor to call on victims to
participate in the actions conducted pursuant to Law 975 does not adequately
guarantee the victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparations.
For more information, please contact: Gustavo Gallón CCJ Director (Tel. 376 8200, Ext. 115).
Bogota, October 12, 2006
3