1 World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), “A Look at the Natural World of Colombia”, 2017, available at: www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/winter-2017/articles/a-look-at-the-natural-world-of-colombia (all internet references were accessed in November 2023). See also Aisling Irwin, “Colombia's Ecological Treasure Trove”, Nature, 19 July 2023, available at: www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-023-02300-6/index.html.

2 Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, “Colombia, el segundo país más biodiverso del mundo, celebra el Día Mundial de la Biodiversidad”, 21 May 2019, available at: www.minambiente.gov.co/colombia-el-segundo-pais-mas-biodiverso-del-mundo-celebra-el-dia-mundial-de-la-biodiversidad/ “Colombia es el tercer país en variedad de especies, gracias a su ubicación”, Periódico el Tiempo, 21 September 2021, available at: www.eltiempo.com/vida/medio-ambiente/colombia-es-el-tercer-pais-con-mayor-biodiversidad-617791; WWF, “¿Por qué Colombia es el país de las aves?”, 23 May 2022, available at: https://tinyurl.com/33h6uekb.

3 Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, “Biodiversidad”, available at: https://www.cancilleria.gov.co/internacional/politica/ambiental/biodiversidad; Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Biodiversity Action Plan 2016–2030, 2017, available at: www.cbd.int/doc/world/co/co-nbsap-v3-en.pdf; United Nations Development Programme, “Acuerdos multilaterales de Colombia: Biodiversidad y cambio climático”, 9 December 2022, available at: www.undp.org/es/colombia/discursos/acuerdos-multilaterales-colombia-biodiversidad-cambio-climatico.

4 Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, above note 2.

5 Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Judgment T-760/07, para. 3.1; Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Judgment C-032/19, para. 9.

6 Law 492 of 1998 regulates collective and class actions; the law also incorporates, as part of the collective interests and rights of the population, the rights to a healthy environment, ecological equilibrium, rational use of natural resources to ensure sustainable development, the protection of areas of special ecological importance, the preservation of animals and vegetable species and the preservation and restoration of environment. This legislation further provides for the assessment of collective damage against indigenous communities during armed conflict and the creation of collective plans for reparation.

7 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 599 of 2000 (Colombian Criminal Code), Title XI, “Crimes against Natural Resources and the Natural Environment”, Arts 332, 333, 334, 334A, 338B.

8 Ibid., Title II, “Crimes against Persons and Objects Protected by International Humanitarian Law”, Arts 154, 157, 160, 164.

9 Special Jurisdiction for Peace (Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz, JEP), El ambiente como víctima silenciosa: Un diagnóstico de las afectaciones en el posacuerdo de paz (2017–2022), July 2022, pp. 12–19, available at: www.jep.gov.co/JEP/documents1/El%20ambiente%20como%20v%C3%ADctima%20silenciosa.pdf. Within this report there is a list of judicial decisions where different courts have recognized rivers, lakes, moorlands and the Amazon region as subjects entitled to rights.

10 Rodríguez, César, Rodríguez, Diana and Durán, Helena, La paz ambiental: Retos y propuestas para el posacuerdo, Dejusticia, Bogotá, 2017, pp. 35–39Google Scholar; Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Judgment C-644/17, para. 16.2.

11 Colombia has been eradicating illicit crops for the past fifity years. Various strategies have been employed for that purpose, including aerial or manual spraying with the broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant glyphosate. For a more detailed scientific discussion on the characteristics and effects of glyphosate, as well as its history, see e.g. Keith R. Solomon, E. J. P. Marshall and Gabriel Carrasquilla, “Human Health and Environmental Risks from the Use of Glyphosate Formulations to Control the Production of Coca in Colombia: Overview and Conclusions”, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Vol. 72, No. 15–16, 2009. Aerial spraying of glyphosate could have adverse effects on the health of populations and wildlife in cases of direct exposure. See International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 UNTS 3, 3 January 1966, Art. 12, available at: www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights; Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Judgment T-080/17, para. 4.13; International Agency for Research on Cancer, Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 112, 2017, pp. 321–399, available at: https://publications.iarc.fr/549.

12 Comisión para el Esclarecimiento de la Verdad, la Convivencia y la No repetición, Hay futuro si hay verdad: Sufrir la guerra y rehacer la vida: Impactos, afrontamientos y resistencias, Final Report, Bogotá, August 2022 (Truth Commission Final Report), pp. 201–202, 208.

13 Comisión para el Esclarecimiento de la Verdad, la Convivencia y la No repetición, “Minería ilegal”, available at: www.comisiondelaverdad.co/etiquetas/mineria-ilegal; JEP, Auto SRVR 01, 1 February 2023, para. 1040. See also JEP, Auto SRVR 03, 5 July 2023, paras 349, 1096.

14 Truth Commission Final Report, above note 12, p. 192.

15 Camilo Ramírez and Sebastián Saavedra, “Derecho Internacional Humanitario y la protección del medio ambiente: nuevas perspectivas para Colombia”, in Édgar Solano González, Manuela Losada Chavarro, María Camila Medina García and María Alejandra Osorio Alvis (eds), Desafíos del derecho internacional humanitario en Colombia: Aspectos filosóficos, hermenéuticos, constitucionales y ambientales, Vol. 2, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, 2022, p. 588Google Scholar, available at: https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/server/api/core/bitstreams/93aa26d9-39eb-4741-aa3e-8a62075fd671/content.

16 Ibid., p. 590.

17 Jennifer Morales Correa, “Complicidad empresarial con grupos paramilitares: Un análisis al caso colombiano”, Razón Crítica, No. 9, 2020, available at: https://revistas.utadeo.edu.co/index.php/razoncritica/article/view/1626.

18 “Los desechos generados por la industria bananera colombiana”, Zonalogistica, 14 May 2020, available at: https://zonalogistica.com/los-desechos-generados-por-la-industria-bananera-colombiana.

19 C. Ramírez and S. Saavedra, above note 15, p. 592.

20 Corte Constitutional de Colombia, Judgment C-644/17, para. 16.2.

21 Ibid.

22 Rachel Killean and Lauren Dempster, “Mass Violence, Environmental Harm, and the Limits of Transitional Justice”, Genocide Studies Prevention: An International Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2022–23, available at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol16/iss1/5/.

23 Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Judgment 7-622/16, para. 5.1.

24 See JEP, Auto SRVR 226, 11 July 2023. In this decision, the Cauca river was recognized as a victim for its use as a mass grave by armed groups and the spill of toxic chemicals from illegal mining and planting of illicit crops by armed groups.

25 International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), “The Recognition of Armed Conflict: A Positive Step”, 12 May 2011, available at: www.ictj.org/es/news/el-reconocimiento-del-conflicto-armado-un-paso-positivo.

26 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 1448 of 2011, Art. 151.

27 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law Decree 4633 of 2011, Art. 45.

28 The CNMH was created by Law 1448 of 2011 (Victims Law) with the purpose of receiving, recovering, preserving, compiling and analyzing all documentary material, oral testimonies and those obtained by any other means, related to violations that occurred during armed conflict in Colombia. See CNMH, “Contexto”, available at: https://centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/contexto/.

29 CNMH, ¡Basta ya! Colombia: Memorias de guerra y dignidad, 2012, pp. 277, 278, available at: https://centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/1.-Basta-ya-2021-baja.pdf.

30 Ibid.

31 Final Agreement to End the Armed Conflict and Build a Stable and Lasting Peace, 12 November 2016 (Final Agreement), available at: www.jep.gov.co/Marco%20Normativo/Normativa_v2/01%20ACUERDOS/Texto-Nuevo-Acuerdo-Final.pdf?csf=1&e=0fpYA0.

32 Ibid., pp. 3, 189.

33 Ibid., p. 20. See United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), “What Is Intangible Cultural Heritage?”, available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003. UNESCO indicates that the category of “intangible cultural heritage” includes “traditions or living expressions inherited from our ancestors and passed on to our descendants, such as oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts”.

34 Final Agreement, above note 31, pp. 105–114.

35 Ibid., p. 188.

36 Ibid., p. 144.

37 Ibid., p. 129; Congreso de la República de Colombia, Legislative Act 01 of 2017.

38 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 1448 of 2011, Arts 166, 168.

39 Presidencia de la República de Colombia, Law Decree 588 of 2017, Art. 11.

40 Comisión de la Verdad, Guía para periodistas: Claves para comunicar el proceso, el Informe Final y el legado de la Comisión de la Verdad, 2022, pp. 174, 175.

41 Ibid.

42 World Charter for Nature, 28 October 1982.

43 The ENMOD Convention had not been ratified by Colombia at the time this article was written.

44 Truth Commission Final Report, above note 12, p. 187.

45 Ibid., pp. 195–201. The Truth Commission documented that nature was weaponized by the paramilitary groups, which used rattlesnakes and other poisonous snakes to kill, alligators and crocodiles in ponds, pools and lakes to get rid of human bodies, and dogs as a means of torture. Also, with regard to the guerrillas, it referred to the destruction of oil infrastructure and the use of donkeys, horses and turtles to carry explosives and bombs.

46 Ibid., pp 189–190.

47 Presidencia de la República de Colombia, Law Decree 4633 of 2011, Arts. 3, 130.

48 Truth Commission Final Report, above note 12, p. 190.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid., p. 197. For the Truth Commission, the bombings carried out by the armed forces could have potentially affected multiple hectares of land, forests, water, animals and plants.

51 Ibid., p. 191.

52 Ibid., p. 209.

53 See International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “Los bienes que generan ingresos para los conflictos armados y el DIH”, Bogotá, 4 June 2020, available at: www.icrc.org/es/document/colombia-los-bienes-que-generan-ingresos-para-los-conflictos-armados-y-el-dih.

54 In relation to its territorial macro cases, the JEP has stated that aerial spraying of glyphosate is one of the activities that has systematically destroyed human–nature relationships. See JEP, “Así investiga la JEP los casos territoriales”, available at: www.jep.gov.co/Sala-de-Prensa/Paginas/Las-particularidades-de-los-macrocasos-territoriales-de-la-JEP.aspx. At the moment, the JEP has not characterized whether aerial spraying of glyphosate constituted a crime. In 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) admitted a petition against Colombia in the case of a woman who was allegedly a victim of aerial spraying of glyphosate. IACHR, “Informe de admisibilidad: Yaneth Valderrama y familia, Colombia”, Informe No. 76/18, Petición 1453-08, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 88, 21 June 2018, available at: www.oas.org/es/cidh/decisiones/2018/coad1453-08es.pdf. See also Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Judgment T-236/17, in which the Court ordered the government not to resume its aerial spraying of glyphosate until an independent institution had adopted regulations to assess risks to health and the environment, and to ensure adequate complaint mechanisms. And see Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Judgment T-413/21, in which the Court invalidated a government resolution that modified an environmental plan for the eradication of illicit crops. The Court ruled that the government had failed to guarantee the right of affected communities to previous consultation.

55 Alonso, Hector Olasolo and Obando, Felipe Tenorio, “Are the Targets of Aerial Spraying Operations in Colombia Lawful under International Humanitarian Law?”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 20, 2018Google Scholar; Cadena, Natalie Andrade, “Colombian Fumigation of Herbicides and International Humanitarian Law”, Ius Humani: Revista de Derecho, Vol. 6, 2017Google Scholar; Landel, Morgane, “Are Aerial Fumigations in the Context of the War in Colombia a Violation of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law?”, Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2010Google Scholar.

56 Truth Commission Final Report, above note 12, p. 199.

57 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 1957 of 2019, Art. 9.

58 Ibid., Art. 42.

59 Ibid., Art. 9.

60 Ibid., Art. 8.

61 See Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 1957 of 2019. According to Article 72(b), the Tribunal for Peace is an organ of the JEP. Article 91 provides that the Tribunal is divided into four sections: (1) the Section of First Instance for Cases of Recognition of Truth and Responsibility, (2) the Section of first Instance for Cases of Non-Recognition of Truth and Responsibility, (3) the Section of Appeals, and (4) the Section of Revision. According to Article 92, the Tribunal for Peace examines the resolutions of the Chamber of Recognition, and decides on the restorative sanctions to impose on the accused in cases of recognition of responsibility. According to Article 93, the Tribunal establishes ordinary sanctions (deprivation of liberty) when the accused does not recognize responsibility and is found guilty after an adversarial trial.

62 JEP, above note 9, p. 4.

63 According to Article 72(a) of Law 1957 of 2019, the Chamber of Recognition is an organ of the JEP. Article 79 provides that the Chamber of Recognition is in charge of documenting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and proposing restorative sanctions to the Tribunal for Peace when the accused contributes to truth-seeking and recognizes responsibility.

64 JEP, Caso 002, Auto 094, 10 June 2020, para. 94. The territory in this case is called Eperara Euja, home of the Eperara Siapidara tribal people.

65 JEP, Caso 005, Auto 002, 17 January 2020. The territory in this case is called Cxhab Wala Kiwe.

66 JEP, Caso 002, Auto SRVBIT 079, 12 November 2019. The territory in this case is called Katsa Su.

67 See above note 64.

68 JEP, Resolución SRVBIT, Caso 002, Auto 018, 24 January 2020.

69 JEP, Auto SRVR 226, 11 July 2023.

70 See ICTJ, “Macro-Criminality and the Case of Colombia: ICTJ Translates Herbert Jäger's Seminal Work into Spanish”, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5a6hner7. The ICTJ defines a macro case as an approach used by the JEP to group together multiple crimes. The purpose is to reveal the broader patterns of macro-criminality – as opposed to focusing on individual or isolated acts – and to prosecute those most responsible for these crimes. See also the JEP cases available at: www.jep.gov.co/Paginas/casos.aspx.

71 Two of the main functions of the Chamber of Recognition are deciding whether the facts and behaviours attributed to different individuals fall under the jurisdiction of the JEP due to them having been committed because of, in connection with or as a direct or indirect result of the armed conflict, and referring a list of persons that are not subject to amnesties or pardons to the Chamber of Definition of Legal Situation. See Law 1957 of 2019, Art. 79(a).

72 JEP, Auto SRVR 102, 11 July 2022, para. 177(h).

73 Ibid., para. 149.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid., para. 122.

76 The Rome Statute provides as war crimes in international armed conflicts (IACs): intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives (Art. 8(2)(b)(ii)); and intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated (Art. 8(2)(b)(iv)). However, these crimes do not appear in the Rome Statute in relation to situations of NIAC. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998 (entered into force 1 July 2002) (Rome Statute).

77 JEP, above note 72.

78 JEP, Auto SRVR 01, 1 February 2023, paras 504–525, 677–679.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid., paras 1062, 1062.1.

81 Ibid., paras 1041, 1063.

82 Ibid., para. 502.

83 Ibid., paras 129–150, 1040.

84 Ibid., para. 1040.

85 Ibid., paras 1041, 1063.

86 Ibid., paras 235–258.

87 Ibid., paras 493, 1039–1041, 1062.2–1062.6. The Chamber of Recognition held that in the affected territories, the FARC-EP was a de facto environmental authority and did not have an active policy to prevent damages from illegal mining and the cultivation if illicit crops. It concluded that the guerrillas profited from the exploitation of mineral resources.

88 JEP, above note 78, para. 493.

89 See concurring opinion in JEP, Aclaración de voto del Magistrado Óscar Parra Vera, Auto SRVR No. 1 de 2023, 15 March 2023, paras 11–15.

90 JEP, above note 78, paras 1025, 1026. The Rome Statute, above note 76, does not have a war crime explicitly labelled as “destruction of the environment”. Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Statute establishes the war crime of excessive incidental damage in IACs. With regard to the natural environment, the commission of this crime requires the knowledge that an attack will produce environmental damage. In addition, the damage has to be widespread, long-term, severe and excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. Article 164 of the Colombian Criminal Code, above note 7, incorporates the crime of destruction of the natural environment without reference to the principle of proportionality: “anyone who in relation to or during an armed conflict, uses methods or means conceived to cause widespread, long-term and serious damage to the natural environment”.

91 JEP, above note 78, para. 1026.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid., paras 1007–1023. The Chamber of Recognition cited Articles 35(3) and 53 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Rules 43, 44 and 45 of the ICRC Customary Law Study, and paras 8 and 9 of the ICRC's 1994 Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/other/57jn38.htm. 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 7 December 1978) (AP I); Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (ICRC Customary Law Study), available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/rules. The ICRC Guidelines were updated in 2020, and Rule 13 of the updated version establishes the prohibition of the destruction of the natural environment not justified by imperative military necessity; see ICRC, Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict: Rules and Recommendations Relating to the Protection of the Natural Environment under International Humanitarian Law, with Commentary, Geneva, 2020 (ICRC Guidelines), available at: https://shop.icrc.org/guidelines-on-the-protection-of-the-natural-environment-in-armed-conflict-pdf-en.html. The Chamber of Recognition also referred to Article 147 of Geneva Convention IV, on the extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. See Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950). It further cited Rule 50 of the ICRC Customary Law Study in relation to the prohibition of destruction and seizure of property of an adversary.

94 JEP, above note 78, paras 1021, 1022.

95 Ibid., paras 1035–1041. The Chamber of Recognition referred to Article 164 of the Colombian Criminal Code, above note 7, on destruction of the environment.

96 JEP, above note 78, paras 1031, 1042. The Chamber of Recognition cited ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. ICTY-94-1-AR72, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 38. This decision included four cumulative requirements for reinforcing characterization of crimes in domestic law as war crimes. These are: (1) the violation must constitute an infringement of a rule of international humanitarian law; (2) the rule must be customary in nature or, if it belongs to treaty law, the required conditions must be met; (3) the violation must be serious, that is to say, it must constitute a breach of a rule protecting important values, and the breach must involve grave consequences for the victim; and (4) the violation of the rule must entail, under customary or conventional law, the individual criminal responsibility of the person breaching the rule.

97 JEP, above note 78, para. 1043.

98 Ibid., para. 1044.

99 Ibid., para. 1033.

100 Ibid., paras 1027–1030. See also Rome Statute, above note 76, Art. 8(2)(e)(xii); and see concurring opinion in JEP, Aclaración de voto del Magistrado Óscar Parra Vera, Auto SRVR No. 001 de 2023, 15 March 2023, paras 16–23.

101 JEP, above note 78, paras 1028–1030.

102 Ibid., para. 1030. See concurring opinion in JEP, Aclaración de voto de la Magistrada Belkis Izquierdo, Auto SRVR No. 001 de 2023, 10 March 2023, para. 28.

103 Rome Statute, above note 76, Art. 8(2)(e)(xii).

104 JEP, above note 78, paras 667–669.

105 Rome Statute, above note 76, Art. 8(2)(e)(iv). See concurring opinions in JEP, Aclaración de voto del Magistrado Óscar Parra Vera, Auto SRVR No. 001 de 2023, 15 March 2023, paras 31, 32; and JEP, Aclaración de voto de la Magistrada Belkis Izquierdo, Auto SRVR No. 001 de 2023, 10 March 2023, paras 70–94.

106 Rome Statute, above note 76, Art. 8(2)(e)(v). See concurring opinion in JEP, Aclaración de voto del Magistrado Óscar Parra Vera, Auto SRVR No. 1 de 2023, 15 March 2023, paras 24–30.

107 See dissenting opinions in JEP, Salvamento parcial de voto de la Magistrada Catalina Diaz, Auto SRVR No. 01 de 2023, 21 March 2023, pp. 2–10; JEP, Salvamento parcial de voto de la Magistrada Lily Andrea Rueda Guzmán, Auto No. 01 de 2023, 9 March 2023, pp. 9–11; and JEP, Salvamento parcial de voto de la Magistrada Julieta Lemaitre Ripoll, Auto No. 01 de 2023, 8 March 2023, pp. 11–16.

108 See dissenting opinions in above note 107.

109 Ibid.

110 Article 164 of the Colombian Criminal Code, above note 7, forbids the destruction of the natural environment. This norm is part of Title II on “Crimes against Persons and Property Protected by International Humanitarian Law”.

111 See dissenting opinions in above note 107.

112 Ibid.

113 Ibid.

114 Ibid.

115 Ibid. See concurring opinion in JEP, Aclaración de voto del Magistrado Óscar Parra Vera, Auto SRVR No. 001 de 2023, 15 March 2023, paras 16, 17, 23. The judge considered that qualifying illegal mining and illicit crops as attacks may not correspond to the definition found in Article 49(1) of AP I. He underlined that “attacks” take place in the context of military operations and hostilities, excluding other activities performed by non-State armed groups such as exploitation of soil. In contrast, see concurring opinion in JEP, Aclaración de voto de la Magistrada Belkis Izquierdo, Auto SRVR No. 001 de 2023, 10 March 2023, paras 73, 85. This judge argued that the environmental destruction could have been characterized as the war crime of destruction of cultural goods. She also stated that since the attack does not have to take place during hostilities, illegal mining and illicit crops could be covered by this war crime.

116 See dissenting opinion in JEP, Salvamento parcial de voto de la Magistrada Catalina Diaz, Auto SRVR No. 01 de 2023, 21 March 2023, pp. 8, 9.

117 See concurring opinion in JEP, Aclaración de voto de la Magistrada Belkis Izquierdo, Auto SRVR No. 001 de 2023, 10 March 2023, paras 28–62; and the dissenting opinions cited in above note 107.

118 JEP, above note 117. In para. 59 the judge disagrees with characterizing environmental damage as destruction of the adversary's property. In her opinion, this perspective does not correspond with the understanding of nature, territory and sacred places of indigenous and ethnic communities.

119 See dissenting opinion in JEP, Salvamento parcial de voto de la Magistrada Catalina Diaz, Auto SRVR No. 01 de 2023, 21 March 2023, p. 8.

120 ICTY, Tadić, above note 96.

121 See the dissenting opinions cited in above note 107.

122 Ibid. See ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 93, Rule 45, “Causing Serious Damage to the Natural Environment”, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule45. “The use of methods or means of warfare that are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment is prohibited. Destruction of the natural environment may not be used as a weapon.” The ICRC indicates that the applicability of both parts of this rule to NIACs is less clear than for IACs.

123 See the dissenting opinions cited in above note 107.

124 Ibid.

125 See concurring opinions in JEP, Aclaración de voto del Magistrado Óscar Parra Vera, Auto SRVR No. 001 de 2023, 15 March 2023, para. 22; and Aclaración de voto de la Magistrada Belkis Izquierdo, Auto SRVR No. 001 de 2023, 10 March 2023, para. 62.

126 JEP, Auto SRVR 03, 5 July 2023, para. 3932.

127 Ibid., paras 1067, 1710, 1733–1763.

128 Ibid., paras 1761, 1797.

129 JEP, Aclaración de voto de la Magistrada Julieta Lemaitre Ripoll, Auto No. 03 de 2023, 10 August 2023, pp. 9, 10.

130 JEP, above note 126, para. 1341. The Chamber of Recognition held that the FARC-EP had committed the crime against humanity of extermination according to Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2)(b) of the Rome Statute, which provide that “extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population, such as the deprivation of access to food and medicine.

131 JEP, above note 126, paras 1770, 1801, 3932. The Chamber of Recognition held that the FARC-EP had committed the war crime provided for in Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute which condemns “[i]ntentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives”.

132 JEP, above note 126, para. 1342.

133 Ibid., para. 1377.

134 Ibid., para. 1384.

135 Ibid., paras 1769–1772.

136 Ibid., paras 1782, 1785.

137 Ibid., paras 1796–1802. The assertion that illegal mining amounts to an attack and that it should be assessed and regulated from the perspective of the paradigm of conduct of hostilities (IHL) is not without controversy. See, for instance, above note 55 on the debate on the legal frameworks applicable to eradication of coca crops. On the discussion on criteria for determining the nexus of an act with armed conflict, see ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, 2019, p. 53, available at: https://shop.icrc.org/international-humanitarian-law-and-the-challenges-of-contemporary-armed-conflicts-recommitting-to-protection-in-armed-conflict-on-the-70th-anniversary-of-the-geneva-conventions-pdf-en.html. See also ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovač and Vuković, Case No. IT-96-23, 12 June 2002, para. 58, available at: www.icty.org/x/cases/kunarac/acjug/en/kun-aj020612e.pdf.

138 ICRC, “What Are ‘Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law’?”, Explanatory Note, available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/2012/att-what-are-serious-violations-of-ihl-icrc.pdf.

139 ICRC Guidelines, above note 93, p. 110.

140 For instance, Article 127 of the 1980 Colombian Criminal Code stipulated that “[r]ebels or seditious persons will not be subject to criminal charges for punishable acts committed in combat, provided they do not constitute acts of ferocity, barbarity, or terrorism”. To this extent, under the regulation of political crimes, acts linked to hostilities were always incorporated into the crime of rebellion and therefore were not penalized, while “atrocious” crimes or acts of “ferocity and barbarity” – what we understand today as IHL violations, such as using indiscriminate weapons or directing attacks against civilians – were excluded from pardons and thus penalized. See Aponte-Cardona, Alejandro, “Persecución penal nacional del homicidio en persona protegida: Alcance y límites del derecho penal en contextos de justicia transicional”, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, Vol. 17, 2010Google Scholar. This tradition of granting amnesties for political crimes was modified by a Constitutional Court decision in 1997 that declared unconstitutional Article 127 of the 1980 Criminal Code, and by the entry into force of a new statute in 2000 that eliminated the aforementioned article and included a chapter to criminalize violations of IHL. See Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Judgment C-456/97.

141 Colombian Political Constitution of 1991, Art. 150(17).

142 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 1820 of 2016, Arts 15, 16.

143 Ibid., Art. 23, para. 2(a).

144 Ibid., Art. 23, para. 1(b)–(c).

145 Ibid., Art. 23, para. 2(b).

146 JEP, above note 78, paras 1021–2014, 1051–1054.

147 See concurring opinion in JEP, Aclaración de voto del Magistrado Óscar Parra Vera, Auto SRVR No. 001 de 2023, 15 March 2023, paras 25, 33–45.

148 JEP, above note 78, para. 497.

149 JEP, above note 147.

150 Ibid., para. 45. According to Article 72 of Law 1957 of 2019, the Chamber of Amnesties and Pardons is an organ of the JEP. Article 81 provides that this organ grants amnesties and pardons to persons accused or convicted of rebellion or related political crimes and that they may be granted conditional release. Conversely, when this Chamber denies an amnesty or pardon, the case is referred to the Chamber of Recognition or the Chamber of Definition of Legal Situation (see Article 84 on the functions of this organ).

151 JEP, above note 147, paras 37, 38. See concurring opinion in JEP, Aclaración de voto del Magistrado Óscar Parra Vera, Auto SRVR No. 003 de 2023, 10 August 2023, para. 43.

152 See the dissenting opinions cited in above note 107.

153 Ibid.

154 JEP, above note 116, pp. 2, 10.

155 Ibid. See Congreso de la República de Colombia, Legislative Act 1 of 2019, which reformed Article 150(17) of the Colombian Political Constitution in the sense that fabricating, trafficking and transporting of narcotics would no longer be considered related to political crimes. In this sense, since the entry into force of Legislative Act 1, amnesties or pardons cannot be granted to such conducts.

156 JEP, above note 78, paras 1046–1056.

157 ICRC Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law, “Amnesties and International Humanitarian Law: Purpose and Scope”, available at: www.icrc.org/en/download/file/54350/final_version_amnesties_factsheet_14_july_2017.pdf.

158 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 93, Rule 159: “At the end of hostilities, the authorities in power must endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in a non-international armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, with the exception of persons suspected of, accused of or sentenced for war crimes.”

159 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 1957 of 2019, Art. 40, para. 2.

160 Ibid., Arts 4, 13.

161 Truth Commission Final Report, above note 12, p. 197.

162 Ibid.

163 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 1922 of 2019, Art. 22.

164 JEP, “La JEP inicia estudio de medidas cautelares sobre el estero de San Antonio en Buenaventura”, Comunicado 044 de 2021, available at: www.jep.gov.co/Sala-de-Prensa/Paginas/JEP-inicia-estudio-de-medidas-cautelares-sobre-el-estero-de-San-Antonio-en-Buenaventura.aspx; JEP, “La JEP realiza audiencia por solicitud de medidas cautelares, sobre el Estero de San Antonio de Buenaventura”, Comunicado 135 de 2021, available at: www.jep.gov.co/Sala-de-Prensa/Paginas/JEP-realiza-audiencia-por-solicitud-de-medidas-cautelares-sobre-el-Estero-de-San-Antonio,-de-Buenaventura.aspx; SAR, Auto AI 070 de 2022, 21 October de 2022, para. 49, available at: https://relatoria.jep.gov.co/documentos/providencias/5/1/Auto_SARV-AI-070_21-octubre-2022.pdf.

165 SAR, above note 164, para. 51.

166 Ibid., para. 56.

167 Ibid., para. 2.

168 Ibid., para. 55.

169 Ibid.

170 Ibid., para. 43.

171 Ibid., para. 62.

172 Ibid., para. 44.

173 Ibid., para. 53.

174 Ibid., paras 27–37.

175 JEP, “¿Qué es la Justicia Restaurantiva?”, available at: https://www.jep.gov.co/Sala-de-Prensa/Paginas/justicia-restaurativa-jurisdiccion-especial-paz-jep.aspx.

176 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 1957 of 2019, Art. 141.

177 Ibid., Art. 20.

178 Ibid., Art. 141.

179 Ibid.

180 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 1922 of 2018, Art. 27.

181 Ibid.

182 We Are Water Foundation, “Sumapaz, the Return of the Guardians of Water”, 30 March 2022, available at: www.wearewater.org/en/sumapaz-the-return-of-the-guardians-of-water_349491.

183 JEP, Sala de Reconocimiento de Verdad, de Responsabilidad y de Determinación de los Hechos y Conductas, Resolución No. 02 de 2022, 24 November 2022, para. 534.

184 Ibid., paras 186–188.

185 Ibid., para. 559.

186 Ibid., para. 583.

187 JEP, Sala de Reconocimiento de Verdad, de Responsabilidad y de Determinación de los Hechos y Conductas, Resolución No. 03 de 2022, 7 December 2022, paras 32, 767.

188 Ibid.

189 Ibid., para. 803

190 Ibid., para. 572

191 Ibid., para. 804

192 Ibid., para, 170

193 Ibid., para. 805. See also JEP, Salas de Justicia, Sala de Reconocimiento de Verdad, de Responsabilidad y de Determinación de los Hechos y Conductas, Auto 128 de 2021, 7 July 2021, para. 575.

194 At the time of writing, the concluding reports of the Chamber of Recognition, with proposals for restorative sanctions to be imposed by the Tribunal for Peace in Macro Cases No. 2 and No. 5, have not yet been issued.

195 Three of the NIACs are between the Armed Forces of Colombia and the ELN, AGC and former FARC-EP currently not covered by the Peace Accord respectively. The other four are between the ELN and former FARC-EP; the ELN and AGC; the former FARC-EP and the Segunda Marquetalia; and the former FARC-EP and the Comandos de la Frontera EB. ICRC, Retos Humanitarios 2023, 2023, available at: www.icrc.org/es/document/colombia-retos-humanitarios-2023.

196 JEP, above note 9, pp. 1, 22, 52.

197 Ibid., pp. 34, 52.

198 Ibid.

199 Defensoría del Pueblo, “El 2022 marcó un lamentable récord de homicidios a líderes sociales y personas defensoras de derechos humanos”, 23 January 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mmkedt74. According to this source, at least 1,113 social leaders were killed between 2016 and 2022.

200 Presidencia de la República de Colombia, “Gobierno y ELN acuerdan nueva agenda de diálogos de paz”, 10 March 2023, available at: https://petro.presidencia.gov.co/prensa/Paginas/Gobierno-y-ELN-acuerdan-Nueva-Agenda-de-Dialogos-de-Paz-230310.aspx.

201 Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 2272 of 2022 (Law on Total Peace), Arts 2(a), 8(c).

202 HRC Res. 48/13, 8 October 2021; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report: Summary for Policymakers, 2022, p. 7, available at: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf; Office of the UN High Commissioner Human Rights (UN Human Rights) and United Nations Environment Programme, What Is the Right to a Healthy Environment?, information note, 2022, p. 17, available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/41599; UN Human Rights, “Joint Statement by Independent United Nations Human Rights Experts on Human Rights Responsibilities of Armed Non-State Actors”, 25 February 2021, available at: www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/02/joint-statement-independent-united-nations-human-rights-experts-human-rights.

203 Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2018, Arts 8(3)(d), 8(3)(g), available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2018/03/20180312%2003-04%20PM/CTC-XXVII-18.pdf; Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, “Presidente Gustavo Petro sanciona la ley que aprueba el Acuerdo de Escazú”, 5 November 2022, available at: www.cancilleria.gov.co/newsroom/news/presidente-gustavo-petro-sanciona-ley-aprueba-acuerdo-escazu. In November 2022, the Colombian Congress passed Law 2273, which approves the Escazú Agreement. After positive review by the Colombian Constitutional Court, this instrument could be ratified. See Congreso de la República de Colombia, Law 2273 of 2022, available at: www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_2273_2022.html.

204 JEP, above note 187, paras 806, 809.

205 Acosta, Carlos H. Lozano, “El daño ambiental en los programas de reparación colectiva para comunidades indígenas y afrodescendientes afectadas por el conflicto armado en Colombia”, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, Vol. 8, No. 17, 2010, pp. 316–317Google Scholar.