By: Editorial Policy. El Espectador, May 12, 2012
Juan Fernando Cristo, Liberal Party, and Juan Carlos Vélez, the U.S., talking about the new debate in the political arena makes the president Alvaro Uribe.
When it looked beyond the debate against the reparation of victims of state agents, the president Alvaro Uribe Velez came to disturb the nest, and the meeting he held in his home in Bogotá , with several senators from the Party of the U, Juan Carlos Velez commissioned to submit a proposal in this regard, which led to conflicting positions between those who defend the repair regardless of who was the murderer and those who feel that in the case of State agents, there must be a court ruling.
Juan Fernando Cristo (Liberal Party)
Why defends independent repair of who the perpetrator?
This is the only way, but the law is unworkable, I repeat, who in the Senate plenary session after consensus was reached that all political forces on the principle of non-discrimination of victims, purporting to exclude victims State agents are placing a car bomb Law victims. Is attempting to dismember it, this is a great deal of discrimination. Based on the agreement of non-discrimination is that the law has had international support and victim organizations.
Are these proposals enemies of law?
That is a debate in which I would like to enter, is a timeless debate of the president Álvaro Uribe Vélez and the last three years was stationed at the time. This debate was overcome last year when it introduced the law. All arguments were evaluated at the time and non-discrimination is supported by the government, the security forces and all forces policies.
Do you think this argument back to the meeting?
That is an argument for bombing the law but I hoped that the discussion in the plenary of the Senate, does not present a paper about it. I think today's meeting of President Santos with his party should leave the country completely calm that will file the result of a consensus paper, and could not be otherwise because if you have proposals to amend the law, that would mean that finally there is still no agreement.
Juan Carlos Velez (Partido de la U)
Why argues that we need a decision courts to compensate victims of state agents?
This is not a new proposal, we present it in the debate in the First Committee of the Senate and that does not mean that we are against reparations for the victims. We accompany the initiative, we believe that in Colombia must compensate the people affected by conflict. But in the case of victims of state agents, I do believe it is necessary to mediate an abbreviated trial which determine the liability of officers.
But note that this is a proposal that seeks to bomb victims law?
This is a proposal of former President Uribe, and see that even He has been changing his mind. Before refusing any kind of compensation for victims of state agents. Now agrees but on condition of going through an abbreviated process that takes no more than six months.
But take 10 months to build consensus and be breaking again?
Here it does not want to break with any consensus, moreover, we recognize that much has been achieved with the passage of this law, there have been significant contributions and the bill to be discussed at the meeting is better than that filed almost a year ago, but this repair could affect the morale of the troops. But
overcome such a discussion? Here
has been made of non-discrimination of victims regardless of who the perpetrator. I agree, but consider it an abbreviated process required not to stigmatize the military and keep morale high, especially now that there is more strength to maintain democratic security.
Juan Fernando Cristo (Liberal Party)
Why defends independent repair of who the perpetrator?
This is the only way, but the law is unworkable, I repeat, who in the Senate plenary session after consensus was reached that all political forces on the principle of non-discrimination of victims, purporting to exclude victims State agents are placing a car bomb Law victims. Is attempting to dismember it, this is a great deal of discrimination. Based on the agreement of non-discrimination is that the law has had international support and victim organizations.
Are these proposals enemies of law?
That is a debate in which I would like to enter, is a timeless debate of the president Álvaro Uribe Vélez and the last three years was stationed at the time. This debate was overcome last year when it introduced the law. All arguments were evaluated at the time and non-discrimination is supported by the government, the security forces and all forces policies.
Do you think this argument back to the meeting?
That is an argument for bombing the law but I hoped that the discussion in the plenary of the Senate, does not present a paper about it. I think today's meeting of President Santos with his party should leave the country completely calm that will file the result of a consensus paper, and could not be otherwise because if you have proposals to amend the law, that would mean that finally there is still no agreement.
Juan Carlos Velez (Partido de la U)
Why argues that we need a decision courts to compensate victims of state agents?
This is not a new proposal, we present it in the debate in the First Committee of the Senate and that does not mean that we are against reparations for the victims. We accompany the initiative, we believe that in Colombia must compensate the people affected by conflict. But in the case of victims of state agents, I do believe it is necessary to mediate an abbreviated trial which determine the liability of officers.
But note that this is a proposal that seeks to bomb victims law?
This is a proposal of former President Uribe, and see that even He has been changing his mind. Before refusing any kind of compensation for victims of state agents. Now agrees but on condition of going through an abbreviated process that takes no more than six months.
But take 10 months to build consensus and be breaking again?
Here it does not want to break with any consensus, moreover, we recognize that much has been achieved with the passage of this law, there have been significant contributions and the bill to be discussed at the meeting is better than that filed almost a year ago, but this repair could affect the morale of the troops. But
overcome such a discussion? Here
has been made of non-discrimination of victims regardless of who the perpetrator. I agree, but consider it an abbreviated process required not to stigmatize the military and keep morale high, especially now that there is more strength to maintain democratic security.
