1 Letter from Pedro Briceño Méndez, Trujillo, 28 November 1820, cited in Daniel Florencio O'Leary, Memorias del General O'Leary, Book XVII, Imprenta de la Gaceta Oficial, Caracas, 1881, p. 580.

2 Carnahan, Burris M., “Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 92, No. 2, 1998, p. 213CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See, for example, O'Connell, Mary Ellen, “Historical Development and Legal Basis”, in Fleck, Dieter (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013, paras 117–118Google Scholar. See also Solis, Gary, The Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2010, p. 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Basdevant, Jules, “Deux conventions peu connues sur le droit de la guerre”, Revue Générale de Droit International Public, Vol. 21, No. 1, Paris, 1914, p. 17Google Scholar. For a refined historical account of this treaty, including the way in which it preceded the Lieber Code and the Battle of Solferino, see Alejandro Valencia, La humanización de la guerra: Derecho internacional humanitario y conflicto armado en colombia, Ediciones Uniandes and Tercer Mundo Editores, Bogotá, 1992, pp. 25–37.

5 The whole text of the Treaty of Trujillo, signed in 1820, can be found in D. F. O'Leary, above note 1, pp. 575–577.

6 Treaty of Trujillo, Arts 2, 3, 8.

7 Ibid., Art. 6.

8 Ibid., Art. 9.

9 See common Article 8/8/8/9 and common Article 9/9/9/10 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

10 Treaty of Trujillo, Art. 4.

11 Ibid., Art. 7.

12 Ibid., Art. 12.

13 Ibid., Art. 11.

14 Ibid., Art. 13. For more details on the scope of this obligation, see Dörmann, Knut and Serralvo, Jose, “Common Article 1 to the Geneva Conventions and the Obligation to Prevent International Humanitarian Law Violations”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 96, No. 895–896, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Villa, Hernando Valencia, “The Law of Armed Conflict and its Application in Colombia”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 30, No. 274, 1990, p. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Ibid., p. 8.

17 Constitución Política para los Estados Unidos de Colombia de 1863, Facsimile Edition of the Universidad Externado de Colombia, 1977, pp. 275–276.

18 Ibid., p. 276.

19 Abad, Iván Orozco, Combatientes, rebeldes y terroristas: Guerra y derecho en Colombia, Editorial Temis, Bogotá, 2006, p. 126Google Scholar.

20 Ibid.

21 Two main theories have tried to elucidate the interplay between domestic and international law. On the one hand, dualism considers that “the rules of the system of international law and municipal law exist separately and cannot purport to have an effect on, or overrule, the other”. So-called monists, on the other hand, accept a “unitary view of law as a whole” and oppose a strict division between a State's internal legal system and the international legal order. See Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law, 7th ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014, pp. 93–94Google Scholar.

22 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence C-574, 1992.

23 Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes, “El bloque de constitucionalidad en Colombia: Un análisis jurisprudencial y un ensayo de sistematización doctrinal”, Dejusticia, 12 December 2005.

24 See, for example, Fernando Travesí and Henry Rivera, “Delito político, amnistías e indultos”, ICTJ Análisis, March 2016, p. 1. See also Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes, “¿Existe o no conflicto armado en Colombia?”, Dejusticia, July 2005.

25 ICRC, Humanitarian Challenges in 2018, Geneva, March 2018, pp. 1, 7.

26 ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 2nd ed., Geneva, 2016 (ICRC Commentary on GC I), para. 421. The ICRC Commentary, in turn, incorporates an array of jurisprudence from international tribunals; see, for example, ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 7 May 1997, para. 562.

27 Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Defence, Directiva 015 para expedir los lineamientos del Ministerio de Defensa Nacional para caracterizar y enfrentar a los grupos armados organizados, 22 April 2016, pp. 5–7.

28 ICRC Commentary on GC I, above note 26, para. 451. For a different view on this matter, see Gasser, Hans-Peter, “International Humanitarian Law: An Introduction”, in Haug, Hans (ed.), Humanity for All: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, 1993, p. 555Google Scholar.

29 Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Defence, above note 27, p. 7.

30 Ibid.

31 Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Defence, Directiva 016 sobre instancias de coordinación Directiva 015 de 2016, 17 May 2016.

32 Ibid., pp. 2–4.

33 Ibid., pp. 4–5.

34 ICRC Commentary on GC I, above note 26, para. 460.

35 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 1995, para. 70. This interpretation has also been followed by the International Criminal Court (ICC). See ICC, The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Trial Judgment, 2014, para. 1176; ICC, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Trial Judgment, 2016, paras 142–144.

36 See ICRC Commentary on GC I, above note 26, paras 460–463.

37 See Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (ICRC Customary Law Study), pp. 537–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Law 1448 of 2011, “Por la cual se dictan medidas de atención, asistencia y reparación integral a las victimas del conflicto armado interno” (Victims’ Law), Art. 3.

39 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence C-291, 25 April 2007. See also ICTY, Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac Kovac and Zoran Vukovic, Case No. IT-96-23, IT-96-23/1-A, Appeals Chamber, 12 June 2002, paras 58–59.

40 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence C-291, 25 April 2007; ICTY, Kunarak, above note 39.

41 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence C-253A, 29 March 2012.

42 Ibid.

43 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence C-781, 10 October 2012.

44 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence T-478, 24 July 2017.

45 See Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (AP I), Art. 43(2).

46 Knut Ipsen, “Combatants and Non-Combatants”, in D. Fleck (ed.), above note 3, paras 301–302.

47 G. Solis, above note 3, p. 188.

48 Dieter Fleck, “The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict”, in D. Fleck (ed.), above note 3, para. 1202.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

51 For a more detailed historical account of this issue, see I. Orozco Abad, above note 19, pp. 99–192.

52 See Law 19 of 1890 enacting the Penal Code, Art. 169.

53 Ibid., Art. 177.

54 See Law 95 of 1936 enacting the Penal Code, Arts 140–142.

55 See Law 100 of 1980 enacting the Penal Code, Art. 127.

56 Cited in I. Orozco Abad, above note 19, p. 177. Needless to say, the debate on the “connection” (conexidad) between the act and the rebellion is closely related to the debate on the nexus to the conflict. Leaving aside the question of compensating victims of war, the bulk of this debate took place while discussing the granting of amnesties, and it will be addressed in more depth in the section below on transitional justice.

57 See the last sentence of Article 127 of Law 100 of 1980 enacting the Penal Code.

58 Cardona, Alejandro Aponte, “Civiles y conflicto armado en la jurisprudencia de la Sala Penal de la Corte Suprema”, Revista de Derecho Penal y Criminología, No. 19, 2007, p. 90Google Scholar.

59 Ibid., pp. 91–97.

60 Supreme Court of Colombia, Sentence 12.051, 25 September 1996.

61 Supreme Court of Colombia, Sentence 12.661, 27 May 1999. For more jurisprudence on the definition of “acts of ferocity and barbarism”, see Cardona, Alejandro Aponte, Derecho penal internacional: Textos escogidos, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, 2014, pp. 256–259Google Scholar.

62 A. Aponte Cardona, above note 58, pp. 93–94.

63 Law 599 of 24 July 2000 enacting the Criminal Code, Title II.

64 Ibid.

65 For a detailed account of this jurisprudence, see Council of State of Colombia, “Graves violaciones a los derechos humanos e infracciones al derecho internacional humanitario”, in Jurisprudencia Básica del Consejo de Estado desde 1916, Third Section, 2017, pp. 308–498.

66 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 37, p. 51.

67 Ibid., pp. 60, 62.

68 Ibid., pp. 68–74.

69 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence T-1206, 16 November 2001.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid.

72 See, for instance, “Hostigamientos de las FARC a la estación de Policía de Jambaló”, El País, 27 July 2012; “Atacaron con ‘tatucos’ la estación de Policía de Toribío”, W Radio, 8 August 2018; “Diez policías resistieron ataques del ELN contra la estación de Los Ángeles”, RCN, 22 December 2016.

73 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence T-1206, 16 November 2001.

74 Ibid.

75 Council of State of Colombia, Sentence No. 28711, 27 September 2013.

76 See also AP I, Art. 77(2), applicable in international armed conflict.

77 See Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/RES/54/263, 25 May 2000, Arts 1, 4(1).

78 See Law 48 of 1993, Art. 10, regulating compulsory military service.

79 Law 599 of 2000, Art. 162 (emphasis added).

80 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence C-240, 1 April 2009, para. 7.3.4.

81 Law 1621 of 2013, Art. 60, establishing the normative framework for intelligence and counterintelligence operations conducted by the armed forces.

82 Law 1098 of 2006, Art. 20.

83 Victims’ Law, above note 38, Art. 2.

84 UNGA Res. 60/147, “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, 16 December 2005, para. 19.

85 Ibid., paras 20–23.

86 Victims’ Law, above note 38, Art. 47.

87 Ibid., Art. 51.

88 Ibid., Art. 52.

89 See ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 37, p. 457. The current Colombian Criminal Code, adopted by Law 599 of 24 July 2000, states in Article 180 that it is a crime to “arbitrarily cause that one or several individuals change their residence, either by violence or through other acts of coercion targeting a specific group of the population”. However, the same provision lays down that “the crime of forced displacement will not cover movements of the population conducted by the State security apparatus, provided that the purpose is either to ensure the security of the population itself, or imperative military reasons, in accordance with international humanitarian law”.

90 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 37, p. 463.

91 Ibid., p. 468.

92 Ibid., p. 472.

93 Internal Displacement Monitoring Center and Norwegian Refugee Council, Global Report on Internal Displacement, 2018, p. 48.

94 Ibid.

95 See Law 368 of 1997, creating the Social Solidarity Network.

96 See Law 387 of 1997, adopting measures to prevent forced displacement and to ensure the assistance, protection and socio-economic stability of people internally displaced by violence. See also Decree No. 2569 of 12 December 2000, clarifying the different obligations of each State authority when it comes to IDPs, and Decree No. 173 of 26 January 1998, adopting the national plan for holistic assistance to IDPs.

97 Law 387 of 1997, Art. 1.

98 Ibid., Art. 18.

99 Victims’ Law, above note 38, Art. 69.

100 For an overview of this law, see García-Godos, Jemima and Wiig, Henrik, “Ideals and Realities of Restitution: The Colombian Land Restitution Programme”, Journal of Human Rights Practice, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 Victims’ Law, above note 38, Art. 76.

102 Ibid., Art. 77.

103 Ibid., Art. 78.

104 Ibid.

105 Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, United Nations Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/17, 2005. According to Principle 2, “all refugees and displaced persons have the right to have restored to them any housing, land and/or property of which they were arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived, or to be compensated for any housing, land and/or property that is factually impossible to restore as determined by an independent, impartial tribunal”.

106 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence SU599/19, 11 December 2019.

107 Ibid.

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid.

110 See Jose Serralvo, “Internal Displacement, Land Restoration, and the Ongoing Conflict in Colombia”, Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, June 2011. It should be reiterated that the purpose of this article is not to evaluate the success in implementing Colombia's legislation; instead, and as mentioned earlier, it focuses on the development of IHL both in the domestic legal framework and through judicial decisions. As a matter of fact, and leaving aside the issue of land restitution, State authorities have had many difficulties coping with the over 6 million IDPs in the country. Interestingly, this has led the Constitutional Court to declare an “unconstitutional state of affairs”, since the rights of people forced to flee their homes due to the conflict were not being respected. See Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence T-025, 2004.

111 One of the most notorious examples was the agreement that put an end to the conflict with the Movimiento 19 de Abril, also known as M-19, during the government of President Virgilio Barco in the early 1990s. More recently, President Alvaro Uribe Vélez signed a peace agreement with the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia. This was regulated by Law 975 of 2005, often referred to as the Justice and Peace Law, which provided for reduced sentences in exchange for full confessions and a contribution to the reparation of the victims.

112 See, for example, Alejandro Ramelli, La naturaleza jurídica del Acuerdo de Paz en Colombia: Aspectos controversiales, Editorial Académica Española, 2019.

113 Final Agreement for Ending the Conflict and Building a Stable and Long-Lasting Peace, 2016 (Final Agreement), p. 135.

114 Ibid., p. 9.

115 Ibid.

116 ICRC, Balance Humanitario, Geneva, 2018, p. 2.

117 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 37, p. 421.

118 Ibid. p. 427. See also UNGA Res. 3220 (XXIX), 1974, para. 76.

119 Decree 589 of 2017, Art. 1.

120 For an overview of some of the experiences of searching for the missing in Colombia, and some insightful comments on best practices in other contexts, see Londoño, Ximena and Signoret, Alexandra Ortiz, “Implementing International Law: An Avenue for Preventing Disappearances, Resolving Cases of Missing Persons and Addressing the Needs of Their Families”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 99, No. 2, 2017, pp. 557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 Decree 589 of 2017, Arts 2, 3; see also Legislative Act 01 of 2017, Transitory Art. 3.

122 Legislative Act 01 of 2017, Transitory Art. 3.

123 Decree 589 of 2017, Art. 1; Legislative Act 01 of 2017, Transitory Art. 4.

124 Legislative Act 01 of 2017, Transitory Art. 3.

125 Decree Law 589 of 2017, Art. 5.3F.

126 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence C-067/18, 20 June 2018.

127 Or armed conflicts, plural, since the Search Unit is authorized to locate those who disappeared in the framework of hostilities involving organized armed groups other than the FARC-EP.

128 Final Agreement, above note 113, p. 153.

129 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 37, Rule 158, p. 607.

130 Ibid., p. 611. See also Protocol Additional (II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) Art. 6(5).

131 Law 1820 of 2016, Art. 2.

132 Ibid., Art. 23.

133 Legislative Act 01 of 2017, Transitory Arts 5, 6; Statutory Law 1957 of 2019 for the Administration of Justice in the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, Art. 36.

134 JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 001, 20 April 2018, para. 36: “one must address without hesitation the preferential character granted by Transitory Article [6] of Legislative Act 01 of 2017 to the [JEP] over other [Colombian] jurisdictions to know of any acts committed prior to 1 December 2016 by cause of, on occasion of or in direct or indirect relation to the armed conflict”.

135 Legislative Act 01 of 2017, Transitory Art. 7; Statutory Law 1957 of 2019 for the Administration of Justice in the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, Art. 72.

136 See Final Agreement, above note 113, p. 178: “All these individuals will need to be highly qualified and they must include experts in different areas of law, with a focus on knowledge of international humanitarian law, human rights or conflict resolution. The Tribunal will need to be formed according to criteria of equal participation by men and women and respect for ethnic and cultural diversity, and members will be elected through a selection process that reassures Colombian society and its different sectors.”

137 Ibid., p. 170.

138 Statutory Law 1957 of 2019 for the Administration of Justice in the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, Art. 91.

139 Ibid., Art. 144.

140 Final Agreement, above note 113, p. 161; Statutory Law 1957 of 2019 for the Administration of Justice in the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, Art. 87.

141 Such as the study on the request for precautionary measures for the protection, preservation and conservation of sixteen places throughout the country where it is indicated that there are presumably missing persons.

142 Final Agreement, above note 113, p. 157; Statutory Law 1957 of 2019 for the Administration of Justice in the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, Art. 79.

143 Case No. 02 “prioritizes the serious human rights situation suffered by the population of the municipalities of Tumaco, Ricaurte and Barbacoas (Nariño)”. Case No. 04 “prioritizes the serious human rights situations suffered by the population in the municipalities of Turbo, Apartadó, Carepa, Chigorodó, Muta, Dabeiba (Antioquia) and El Carmen del Darién, Riosucio, Unquía and Acandí (Chocó)”. Case No. 05 “prioritizes the serious human rights situation suffered by the population of the municipalities of Santander de Quilichao, Suárez, Buenos Aires, Morales, Caloto, Corinto, Toribío and Caldono (Cauca)”. Case No. 06 concerns the “victimization of members of the Patriotic Union (UP) by agents of the State”.

144 Law 1820 of 2016, Art. 21.

145 Statutory Law 1957 of 2019 for the Administration of Justice in the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, Art. 81; JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP–SA–SENIT 2 de 2019, 9 October 2019, paras 129–134; JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 004 de 2018, 30 April 2018.

146 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Decision 007/2018, 2018; Law 1820 of 2016, Art. 14; Legislative Act 01 of 2017, Transitory Arts 1, 5.

147 See Law 1820 of 2018, Art. 23, which establishes the criteria to determine the nexus to the political crime. Additionally, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the JEP cannot exercise its competence over conducts whose primary goal was the personal enrichment of the individual, although it opened the door to an exception if the enrichment was not “the determining cause of the criminal conduct”. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Decision C-007, 2018, para. 540.

148 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentence C-007, 2018, para. 774.

149 Law 1820 of 2018, Arts 17, 22.

150 Legislative Act 01 of 2017, Transitory Art. 5 of Art. 1; Law 1820 of 2016, Art. 3.

151 Law 1820 of 2016, Arts 15, 16, 23, 24.

152 Ibid., Art. 5.

153 JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 19, 21 August 2018, para. 11.13; JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 110, 30 January 2019, para. 41.4.

154 JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 19, 21 August 2018, para. 11.12; JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 110, 30 January 2019, para. 41.4.

155 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Decision C-253 A, 2012, para. 6.3.3.

156 JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 19, 21 August 2018, para. 11.15.

157 Legislative Act 01 of 2017, Constitutional Transitional Art. 23: “a) that the armed conflict had been the direct or indirect cause of the commission of the criminal conduct; b) that the existence of the armed conflict had influenced the author, participant or concealer of the criminal conduct committed by cause of, on occasion of or in direct or indirect relation to the conflict, with regard to: his or her ability to commit it, that is, because of the armed conflict the perpetrator has acquired greater skills that served him or her to execute the conduct; his or her decision to commit it, that is, the resolution or disposition of the person to commit it; the manner in which it was committed, that is, the fact that, as a result of the armed conflict, the perpetrator of the conduct had the opportunity to count on the means that served him or her to consummate it; and the selection of the objective that was intended to be reached with the commission of the crime.” Cf. Final Agreement, above note 113, p. 145, 5.1.2, para. 9; JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 110, 30 January 2019, para. 41.3; JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 166, 28 May 2019, para. 15.

158 JEP's Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 110, 30 January 2019, para. 41.2; JEP Appeal Section, Sentence TP-SA 166, 28 May 2019, para. 15.

159 Ibid.

160 For example, JEP Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon, Sentence SAI-AOI-RC-011-2019, 26 August 2019 (extortive kidnapping); JEP Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon, Sentence SAI-AOI-D-014-2019, 8 October 2019 (homicide of protected persons, attempted homicide of protected persons, attempted aggravated homicide and terrorism); JEP Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon, Sentence SAI-AOI-006-2019, 4 February 2019 (aggravated homicide, acts of terrorism, homicide of protected persons, attempted homicide of protected persons); JEP Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon, Sentence SAI-AOI-T-MGM-254-2019, 31 December 2019 (extortive kidnapping, forced displacement, homicide of protected persons, forced disappearance); JEP Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon, Sentence SAI-LC-AOI-D-MGM-126-2019, 5 December 2019 (illicit recruitment); JEP Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon, Sentence SAI-LC-AOI-D-MGM-075-2020, 4 February 2020 (forced displacement).

161 JEP Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon, Sentence SAI-AOI-RC-011-2019, 26 August 2019, para. 11. After this decision, there have been many others referring cases to the other two chambers.

162 Ibid., paras. 12, 13.

163 Ibid., para. 17.

164 JEP Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon, Sentence SAI-AOI-010-2019, 8 August 2019, paras 182, 183. See also JEP Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon, Sentence SAI-SUBA-AOI-D-067-2019, 2 December 2019 (terrorism, employment, production, commercialization and storage of anti-personnel mines and aggravated environmental pollution).

165 JEP Chamber for Amnesty or Pardon, Sentence SAI-AOI-010-2019, 8 August 2019, para. 211: “la Sala concluye que, en el caso particular, se cometió una infracción al DIH que tiene la entidad para adquirir la connotación de crimen de guerra”.

166 Human Rights Watch, Guerra sin cuartel: Colombia y el derecho internacional humanitario, 1998; ICRC, Aplicación y respeto del DIH: Un reto para Colombia, 28 November 2016.