¿Más leña al fuego?

En este episodio la nave territorializadora sobrevuela un nuevo debate que se ha abierto en la JEP sobre la inclusión de la esclavitud como una práctica dentro del  macrocaso 01 “Toma de rehenes, graves privaciones a la libertad y otros crímenes concurrentes cometidos por las FARC-EP. Abróchese los cinturones y acompáñenos en este viaje por la tierra del olvido.

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
At the back of Bula in chalupa, campero, motorcycle or plane. Colombia
is traveled from south to north andfrom east to west. Its inhabitants glimpse
the abandonment and changes of their territories. In this season get on the territorializing
ship and accompanied on this trip throughthe land of the Oblivion or Rosario Radio,

(00:24):
presents Territory hello to everyone and welcometo the eighth episode of territory here
in a Rosario Radio, in theinstitutional misery of the University of Rosario.

(00:46):
In this season we have focused ontalking about the special jurisdiction for peace,
taking stock of some of the macro- cases, some of the participants and
some of the political tensions that havearisen in recent months. For this episode.
We will be talking about how theformer secretary of the extinct guerrilla park
decided in recent weeks not to acceptthe crimes of slavery charged in one of

(01:11):
the cars issued by the special jurisdictionfor peace, for the macrocase one.
Before we start, I' mgoing to say hello to the work table.
So Alejandro is welcome back here inTerritorium. How is Hello Danielita,
good morning, well, well,on the one hand, but concerned with
everything that happens in the country,this upsurge, the conflict. We see

(01:32):
the cauca, as the cauca isincreasingly stricken by those boobies and explosive devices.
I don' t know how muchshe' s dead anymore. Worried
about forced recruitment? Concerned about theissue of minors captured in combat. Well,
it' s sad everything that's going on and it seems like

(01:55):
this government didn' t wake upnot about what' s going on in
these territories. And also, wellvery happy because this is already the penultimate
episode of this je season Let's see what the territory is coming with
in the next season. The ideais to continue working on all these issues
after agreement and on all issues thatend up negatively affecting the territories of our

(02:19):
countries. For those who listen tous for the first time and those who
follow us, please remember that theycan follow us in our Instagram profile with
the territory and they can listen tous on Google, Podcast, Spreaker and
Spotify and search us in their favoriteweb search engine. Thanks to Alejandro.

(02:40):
We also greet Mario, director ofu Rosario Radio, and Nelson, who
always accompanies us in master' scontrol I open chees in welcome belts and
welcome to territory. You' relistening to territory, territory, territory,

(03:08):
territory, territory, as Alejandro wascommenting. Saying hello to us on this
show. The situation in the countryputs several questions and several important issues at

(03:29):
the forefront. In recent weeks wehave been discussing the importance of truth and
the commitment to the truth that thosewho claimed to submit to special jurisdiction for
peace must have, for the sakeof equality We cannot but be alien to
the situation of violence in the variousterritories of the country. That' s
why I think we' re goodnow and getting a little ahead of what

(03:52):
' s coming for territory. Wewill be able to begin an analysis of
this implementation of the Peace Agreement,but also of the position of the Government
and those actions that have been criticizedby different sectors. In the context of
that implementation of the agreement and ofthose positions that have been well criticized,
it is worth turning to one ofthe programs that we started this season on

(04:15):
the special jurisdiction for peace and inthat program so that they go and listen
to it. There they are inSpotify and they have some audio clips on
our instagram. Take over the territory. We discussed what the former Secretariat of
the former and extinct guerrillas of theFARK was asking for and also how those
positions were aligning with some statements byGustavo pret' s government in Ellas.

(04:42):
Part of the problem has been focusedon the fact that the special jurisdiction for
peace is not fulfilling its work,according to them, and that the peace
signatories are at risk of legal uncertaintyat the same time The statements of the
President and also of the former ForeignMinisterÁlvaro have called into question the progress

(05:03):
of the jurisdiction by saying that thejurisdiction really must be reconsidered and that it
does not constitute a closing court.In the midst of those discussions, we
have also made progress on what JudgeRoberto Vidal has said and on how jurisdiction
if it has a purpose of closure. But let us say that it has
specific competence and that it has competenceover the signatories of the peace, over

(05:26):
the members of the security forces andthird civilians who claimed to submit voluntarily.
And for that, so that thespecial jurisdiction for peace can reach its conclusions
and sentences, it is important thatall actors in the process commit themselves to
the truth. There, Alejandro,I would like you to recapitulate those discussions,

(05:47):
of the commitment to the truth andwith what we have been talking about
in the last programmes, and aboveall, the importance of these in order
to really or not only be ableto consor a political project there is a
country, but also to make reparationto the victims and to satisfy their right
to truth, justice, reparation andnon- repetition. Debates, giveiel the

(06:11):
part, because first of a changein the notion of justice. We'
ve trite this quite a bit,even before this season. We are talking
here about justice with a special nature. We are talking about transitional justice,
it is a justice with an understandingthat moves away from punitive justice, that

(06:32):
policy of crime and punishment. Andon the basis of that transitional justice it
is on which the concept of truthis built. This concept is very important,
Daniela, because truth is understood asa mechanism of compensation for victims who
have been affected by the armed conflict. But what happens how this is still

(06:54):
a political issue beyond, because yourevived a legal nature, because it has
been given a certain touch has beenbased a little like the ball that nobody
wants to take and the people thatthey have and that they have committed to
contributing to the truth, because firstthey have faced, say, some setbacks

(07:15):
from their perspective have said that theGEB has been slow to judge that they
have already contributed and that how theyare valuing then the participations in the macro
cases should already be cases judged,et cetera, et cetera. Wanting to
rush institutionality. Obviously, it isnecessary to understand the nuances of the arguments
around the topic and other people whohave asked to integrate themselves as participants of

(07:41):
this figure. Daniela explained it verywell in the chapter of the maze of
mancuso. And these people, ifthey are accepted within the integral system.
Verdamos says repair and a repetition.They have such an obligation because it becomes
a legal obligation. They have alegal obligation to contribute to the truth that

(08:03):
has happened, for example, inanother delivery that we already made, I
think it was the previous one,which is the labyrinth of rite away,
we see that this person has notreally contributed. Rather, what it has
done is slow down the processes,delay the investigations, keep its friends safe
and, therefore, maintain all thesenetworks of Daniel corruption that are still in

(08:24):
the country today and that are appropriatingour institutions. Then the debates are first
philosophical. Obviously, we need tochange a little that rationality of justice to
which we are accustomed. They alsogo through politics, because we already have
sectors of our society that say thatthe JEB is made up of guerrillas,
made up of guerrillas, that themagistrates are guerrillas who will favor the guerrillas.

(08:48):
Also within these political debates are,therefore, the former signatories who say
that the trials should have already begun, that the boss knows little, that
they have not yet been guaranteed protection. And that is true, Daniela,
because many signatories are still being killedin the territories. And obviously, then,

(09:09):
the legal debates of people who likepunishment the most directly saying that people
are being given special treatment saying thatthis is part of that agreement, which
is a political agreement. This iswhere all these spheres, the philosophical,
the political and the legal ones beginto mix Then, to today that leaves

(09:31):
everything that has happened to us allafter blinding, because the institutionality is very
weak. The petro government seems notto support it. As a matter of
fact, I hit her pretty hard. Also the right wing sectors have also
beaten her and people are attending witha single candle and sa. Then we
don' t know what' sgoing to happen. And we have already

(09:52):
said that several times in the territory. You have to meet him and surround
the gepic or travel it to seewhat' s going to happen. That,
as Colombia we assume a commitment thathas a temporality and if from here
to that temporality not from here,not to implement what has to be achieved,
nor that temporality that the objectives arenot achieved. For what we are

(10:15):
going to see is that this institutionalabsence and that deficiency and that state failure,
which is not of the ge butis constant in time, is historical,
because it will continue to deepen.This will be linked to the resurgence
of the conflict that we are livingin the territories, especially in South Colombia,
and then where we are going togo. There is one thing that

(10:39):
you mention that draws my attention alot, and it is that contrast that
it makes with the past program inwhich we talk about the case of Ritualejo
del Río, and you think itis emphatic and very precise in pointing out
the importance of that commitment to thetruth. But I would believe that,
in addition, in this case andwhat must be demanded of it by the

(11:01):
signatories of peace is a real commitmentto the whole process. Here' s
two things. The first is thatwe cannot deny that if there are shortcomings
in the implementation of the agreement thathave put their security at risk and to
that end, the Constitutional Court hasalready pronounced itself and has demanded not only
the Government, but also the territorialauthorities to pronounce themselves and to act in
favour of the security of the signatoriesof peace. But, on the other

(11:24):
hand, in the midst of these, in the midst of the insecurity they
claim, they have also said thatthere is legal uncertainty in the actions of
the special jurisdiction for peace, andthat is very serious, especially that it
comes from the former secretary of theextinct guerrillas of the Falk different from the
other cases to which we have referred, when we have been emphatic and we

(11:46):
have talked a lot about the needfor a commitment to the truth for the
victims of the armed conflict. Notonly is there a need for a commitment
to the truth that I would sayto some extent has been fulfilled in one
way or another. Of course youmay have your notes on your feet,
but let' s say you've heard a commitment to those recognition hearings

(12:09):
for the victims. I also understandthat, particularly in case one, the
victims have demanded that they have notalways been able to participate and that is
something that the heb will have toanswer to them for The problem is when
the final stages are already beginning tobegin to give them is closed so necessary
in the macro cases and it seemsas if from the former secretariat of the

(12:31):
former guerrilla of the FARK they wantto generate nuances with the pronouncements of the
Special Jurisdiction for Peace. And here' s one thing. We cannot begin
to talk about nuances, actions andcrimes committed during the armed conflict. We
cannot say that something is more orless serious, because that finally takes advantage
of the right of the victims andalso ends up being a form of revictimization

(12:54):
within the framework of their scenarios,which the Special Jurisdiction for Peace has sought
to make public. So it isa scenario in which you really think and
it is necessary that peace- signorsbe required to commit themselves, not only
to the truth, but to thatstage where the Tribunal begins to act that

(13:16):
comes next. In this particular caseand what has been happening in the last
few weeks is that the special jurisdictionfor peace has issued certain orders with some
conclusions that they have found in macrocase one, that this macro case of
kidnapping made great features. When thisdocument is presented, the signatories of passage,

(13:39):
those who are determined to have beenresponsible, have the possibility to give
answers, to accept fully, toaccept some things that are said or not
to accept anything. Before we saythat process, which is precisely when the
sentence is about to be handed down. They can ask for requests, modifications,

(14:01):
sinulities within is the first version,which I believe is last year,
or in the advances that had beenmade there was a recognition on the retention
by the signatories of pass. However, in this new order that issued special
jurisdiction for peace, the former leadershipof the FARK' s extinct guerrilla movement
filed a request for partial annulment ofthe document. That' s what it

(14:24):
means. They are not saying thateverything that the special jurisdiction for peace in
the macro case said is wrong,but they are saying that they do not
agree with the pronouncement of jurisdiction ona very important point, the point on
which they want a review is aboutcrimes in the midst of this hostage-

(14:46):
taking by the guerrillas, such asslavery or torture. Already on this macro
case as I was saying, thewhole final part was beginning to develop a
hearing of origin and commitments to thetruth and when the signatories set out how
they will commit themselves, to repairthe victims to also proceed to determine what

(15:07):
the sanctions are. But at thispoint let' s say that that is
frozen, because what they are askingis that the document be revoked and they
ask for twenty modifications And here theone that most attracts attention is the one
that they point out about slavery andforced labor in this regard What they have

(15:30):
said is that talking about slavery inthe context of the armed conflict is not
appropriate and they ask for a cleardistinction to be made by the special jurisdiction
for peace. However, let ussay within these debates, it seems to
me that it is already where thesedoubts and questions begin to appear. It
seems that the ways in which theyhave pronounced themselves that there is a recognition

(15:50):
of forced labour, but they pointout that this is not translated, that
it is slavery And when we beginto talk about such fine lines, I
am concerned that in those pronouncements theEaster signatories seek to nuance the advances that
the Special Jurisdiction for Peace has hadin this subject. To me the truth

(16:11):
leaves me as perplexed first because obviouslyI do not have the illegal technical knowledge
to enter to discuss whether one crimeis homologable with the other, if as
far as the limits of slavery,forced labour, kidnapping go. But,

(16:32):
second of all, because I thinkwe' ve been growing it in these.
I don' t know how manychapters of this season, Daniela,
but all this is coming and going, because the pimponeo that is given in
the end ends up disaffecting the victims. True, then you can take out
a document and say that you donot agree with the issue of slavery,

(16:55):
because in the context of the conflictI am not going to invent it.
We cannot speak of slavery, butrather of a crime of war of labour,
for the sake of survival in thecampamentarist zorms or whatever. But then
that' s where we start tosee how it is that the phalonists that

(17:17):
are being given, that is,obviously they won' t say, they
won' t accept that they areslavers, because that' s basically what
you' re telling them now.And they' re also trying to push
things, because, in effect,what' s happening is that they'
re being killed. And it seemsthat the GEB' s progress has been
slow. This from their perspective,now from the perspective of the victims,

(17:41):
so, Daniela, I don't know. A vocal group or research
should be done soon on how theyperceive the real importance of that topic.
That is, for the victims itis really important that they accept that they
were either escla or enslaved. Idon' t know, I don'

(18:03):
t know if it' s reallyimportant that they recognize forced labour, as
I think they have done so far, obviously, within that macro case,
of practice, of the secret ofkidnapping. But then I feel that that
kind of thing should include the victimsmore. Suddenly. I am now sinning
out of ignorance, because I don' t know if it has happened like

(18:26):
this, Daniela, but when itcomes to building that document, for example,
I don' t know if they' ve called the victims to ask
them if it' s really importantfor them to recognize by the signatories of
the agreement that they were slavers ornot. That is to say, Daniela,
because I also feel that the lawhas been a little ankylosed and in

(18:48):
a country like Colombia, where slaverydisappeared a long time ago and other forms
of slavery have appeared. That isnot in the debate, because we should
see if a crime like that reallydoes, First, I would apply that,
as I told you, I donot have the legal technical knowledge and,

(19:10):
second, yes, it is obviouslya real apparatus for the victims to
feel that they are being compensated andthat they are being contributed to the truth.
I mean, I feel it isa debate that refers to only one
of those three areas that I mentionedat the beginning of my speech, which
is to the legal sphere, butthen where is the intersectionality with the other

(19:30):
areas. Surely this is an issuethat is intercepted with the political sphere,
because they will be handling it andthey will be threshing it very hard saying
that politically, because everything that ishappening has already been predicted because they had
said that, therefore, they wouldcontribute to their release. But they'

(19:51):
re also going to say no,then you have to punish them very hard.
The political manoeuvring is there, butthen it would have to be asked
again depending on those three spheres ifphilosophically that has a real impact on the
victims, or rather it is onlymedia, only legal. And politically,
you' re hitting part of thedebate because the judge who issued the order,

(20:17):
Judge Suarez. One of the thingshe points out is that here there
is no such thing as an interestor part of what special jurisdiction for peace
claims. It is not that responsibilityfor a specific type of crime is accepted,
it would be a criminal offence,but what is sought is to impute
and determine what these facts and patternsand conduct are. That is the responsibility

(20:44):
they seek, that they accept thosewho are bringing you special jurisdiction for peace.
And there he cannot say, butwhat is the difference between one thing
and another, different a process withinthe ordinary justice system, where the person
is recognized as not guilty or notof a crime for which he is being
accused here what is also sought tobe understood And precisely because of the magnitude

(21:07):
of the macro- cases, becauseof the magnitude of the conflict, because
of the high number of victims andthe high number of perpetrators, one cannot
begin to break down on each ofthe crimes, but on those behaviors and
patterns. This is as I wassaying in last intervention. This car,
let' s say, isn't new. Different cars have been preferred.
Comments are made on the part andpart and on why, why is

(21:33):
forced labour imposed on the victims inthe context of their retention, in the
context of kidnapping, integrated or calledfor to be categorized as slavery? This
is a request made by the Officeof the Attorney- General of the Nation,
and it is the Office of theProcurator- General that calls for the

(21:53):
use of the category of slavery andfor the identification of cases of sales of
victims in the midst of that request. In the twenty- first year,
the examining magistrate' s request wasgranted, and in months later, the
following year, in February of thetwenty- two thousand, the defence of
the persons present rejected the legal termof slavery. But here it is to

(22:15):
insist again he is looking for usor is determining slavery as a crime,
but as part of a conduct.However, which is the biggest dog.
This rejection to the end was inFebruary of the two thousand twenty- two,
but in June of that same year, at that public hearing of recognition,

(22:37):
the former guerrilla leaders of the ExtintaGuerrilla de las Farcks accepted their responsibility
in the midst of this macrocassation ofdeprivations of liberty, taking reins murders and
enforced disappearances. Let' s justsay that basically and as I' m
getting it a little bit, it' s like they' ve accepted the
whole package that was putting special jurisdictionfor peace. And after that, in

(22:59):
the resolution of ns conclusions, therecognition room, what it has established is
we are not asking for the recognitionof a criminal type, but facts and
conduct. And that' s whywhat they' re saying or what special
jurisdiction is saying is basically that thisdebate doesn' t make any sense,
because finally there' s already arecognition of responsibility for the crimes for which

(23:22):
they were charged in the context ofthat macro case, essentially, which was
holding people. So let' ssay that I really feel that, in
view of the fact that the SpecialJurisdiction for Peace is already assuming that there
is already recognition for what has happenedin previous hearings. It also seems to
me that the position of the formerSecretary of the extinct grid of the park

(23:47):
is generating a discussion that is unnecessaryand that what it does is start to
delay the process again and to delaythe process and then perhaps the question again.
There needs to be a commitment ofall to peace, and more of
them are the signatories of peace.Moreover, this is not the first time
that they have sought to nuance anyof the conclusions issued by the Special Jurisdiction

(24:07):
for Peace in the Amidside the Pandemic. The congresswoman, Sandra Ramírez, basically
said that they had never forcibly recruitedany minors already, because she had to
retract it. But we cannot beginto create nuances about behaviors and patterns in
the midst of armed conflict if wereally expect the Special Jurisdiction for Peace to

(24:30):
complete its work and if we hopeto bet on a country political project.
That is why I am disappointed that, in the midst of the negotiations that
are taking place with our armed groups, the progress made by the Special Jurisdiction
for Peace, not necessarily for theGovernment, but for the country and for
the international community, which, hopefully, in the processes that are taking place

(24:51):
will be guarantors, because it willbe decisive for what is coming in the
coming years and in the midst ofthese processes and the solution that can be
developed for those, as we havealready said in previous programmes, the seven
internal armed conflicts that the country hasactive at this moment. I believe there,
Daniela, that because, ultimately,the subject there can even cross through

(25:17):
an internal philosophical debate that the signatorieshave, I mean, I don'
t know to what extent they havethe capacity to self- acknowledge themselves as
slave- owners and understand, therefore, that the practices they committed within the
macro case of kidnapping indirectly could cometo shape the crime of slavery. But

(25:40):
then what you say is real.But I think that only when you manage
to reduce it to the victims,that is, this whole system was built
for the victims, and then whathappens when you say it well we try

(26:02):
to whip up what we did inthe past. The practices and abuses to
which we subjected Colombian citizens in thepast are six macro cases. And so
six macro- cases rightly imply thepossibility that crimes such as slavery may arise.
That is, we have a penalcode in Colombia and the penal code

(26:25):
continues to operate. What happens isthat here we are talking about a different
conception of justice. But there arestill penalties attached to crimes, to the
Crimes Commission, but for the simplefact of being part of the system by
truly integrating justice, reparation and non- repetition, since these penalties are also
treated differently. So the criticism isgood, because we are seeing. It

(26:53):
is how these nuances and use politically, of course, to get out well
pounds, that is to say,to lower the legal burden a little bit.
But beyond that, it' salso like a little chest tap to
lower a moral burden on you,like what this lady did that said that
a minor had never been forcibly recruitedbecause it' s also a big lie

(27:18):
and as you said well before,because we' re constantly revictimizing the victims
and beyond that, we' removing them away from the possibility of getting
out of all this at once andthen it becomes the double pressure that I
already mentioned before. It' show we do that in the years that

(27:38):
we have left of he or?It is how we do to achieve the
objectives and how we do, onthe other hand, at the level of
care, to prevent the escalation ofthe conflict from continuing to generate and victims
and victims as if it were,then, a machine of violence and the

(27:59):
future. So I see that manyof the signatories have theoretically first put talanqueras
on the subject of je to saythat some foundation not so much, I
do not know what the political futureof the sectors that today represent the signatories
of peace will be. The truth, Daniela, as things stand, I
already see them burned, that is, the people who came to occupy public

(28:23):
cools in which they had some director indirect relationship with the guerrillas or the
peace signatories. I no longer seehim as a political project. In fact,
they' re pretty quiet because they' re all appeased. Or not
to think that with this government,they would do more. But this government

(28:48):
has also been quiet because it isalso quite appeased. And here we see
then that the discourses that are goingto pick up are the discourses that unfortunately,
because we like Colombians Daniela, Andit is hate speeches, speeches of
inadequacy, from the left it onlybrings poverty, etcetera, etcetera. And

(29:08):
then those speeches are the speeches ofwar. And if we are avoiding war
at all costs and come the discoursesof war to be taken into politics,
for we already know what the fateis. And then one more sixty seventy
eighty years of conflict worries, howmany EPs we' re going to need,

(29:32):
how many rationality changes for the understandingof justice, how many programs,
projects plans to compensate the victims,when the truth, especially that question you
' ve been asking, how longwe' re going to wait. I
honestly do not see a clear wayout, especially because there is no credibility

(29:55):
in the current Government that allows usto think about what is going to be
able to move forward in the negotiationprocess and possibly new agreement with another armed
group And more so if we addto that that what is happening and those
discussions that are taking place between theGovernment and the jurisdiction for the special for
peace and between the signatories and thespecial jurisdiction for peace, because, of

(30:18):
course, it gives many more encouragementto those who have been detractors of the
agreement from the zero moment to continueto draw conclusions, to continue to be
launched into riistro, against the specialjurisdiction for peace and to draw this discourse
from the fact that justice without prisonsor does not matter and that discourse from

(30:40):
the hard hand we already know.I hope, I am mistaken because I,
I really admire the work that thejurisdiction has done and I think that
they have had to row against windand tide and have had to row in
many cases with those who supposed todefend them and that they were going to
commit to comply with the agreement togo closing and before starting to look well,

(31:02):
what will happen to the special jurisdictionfor peace? Here is a very
important point with this and with thisdiscussion of the former secretariat with the special
jurisdiction for peace? And it isthat within those details of the recognition section
they speak of slavery, because theforced labor they say was imposed on the
victims, were not consented and characterizedby control and abuse as a means of

(31:27):
developing work, as well as threatsof death and danger to the integrity of
the people in case of refusal toperform these jobs. So there is an
issue that is particularly linked to thenon- feeling, which is what also
allows slavery to be spoken in thecontext of the forced retention of persons from

(31:47):
the armed conflict, and I believethat this is important, because it is
also important to highlight for this pointwhat special jurisdiction for peace is seeking.
Here it is wanted that already ofa recognition, of a script within the
framework of those first hearings of themacrocases and here simply, to ratify some
behaviors and patterns within the armed conflictas an armed group, that allow now

(32:14):
to think about what is that commitmentto the victims and with the truth and
how they will think to repair thevictims, because finally accept the responsibility,
because that is where they begin toplay amnesties. Here let' s say
that you wouldn' t be acceptingresponsibility for something nove dos, but you

(32:34):
start that whole closing process that allowsyou to delve into the patterns of behavior.
That would be that side of thecase. However, I do have
a lot of questions left for Alejandroabout that commitment to peace. I really
believe that it is not only withthe truth, but also with the agreement,
because, although this is true wehave also said many programs that finally

(32:57):
have an agreement, because it opensthe door that there is non- compliance
by either party. And what wehave seen in the implementation of the peace
agreement is that there has been complianceby governments, not only by the current
Government, but also by the Governmentof Juan Duque and also in compliance by
the signatories. So here the questionis how we begin to move beyond these

(33:20):
breaches so that the peace agreement canreally move forward and that the special jurisdiction
for peace, which I would sayat the moment is the most important entity
and the one that will give usthe answers that we have been waiting for
as a society, to what happenedin the armed conflict so that the special
jurisdiction for peace can continue to advancenormally and with much more force in the

(33:44):
years ahead. That' s verycomplex. Daniela, why doesn' t
it stop being a political issue?Not then, compromises are virtual. Let
' s put it this way,it' s paper. The commitments are
already in the face of the configurationof the system, they are already in
the whole configuration of the hem alreadyin all the points that have been signed

(34:07):
in the agreement, but the realcommitments, Daniela, we already know that
here, in Colombia, because therole definitely endures everything, but the reality
does not correspond to what is onthe paper, because the real commitments are
still not worrying how each Government hascommitted itself since the signing of the agreement,

(34:28):
because they have not, therefore,had a good position regarding the execution
of the agreement and the development ofthe system and to support the hep and
surround it. What is more worrying, Daniela, that if he is not
better answered, it is as ifthe agreement has left the Colombian state between

(34:50):
the sword and the wall because withinthe political constitution, Daniela, it is
assumed that because Colombia is a Stateof law, because the citizens have rights,
true, they also have duties.This implies citizenship in a State governed
by the rule of law and,but beyond that, the State also as
an actor has duties and has rights, so what is the duty of the

(35:15):
State in this specific case, sinceprotecting the victims, look at this,
protecting the perpetrators, who can alsobe considered as victims, that is,
protecting the signatories, protecting the victims, protecting the institutionality is a rather difficult
task, because we know that theState responds to the rationality of the government

(35:35):
in turn. True and, onthe other hand, then the state also
against the sword and the wall becauseit tries to sit with the ln and
we already know historically that negotiating withthe ln is quite complex and that it
is difficult to reach a real agreement. And in the meantime, the state
is then making the glasses with thetheme of the Mexican cartels that are in

(36:01):
Colombia. And then I start tothink, Daniela, if the State does
not respond in the scenarios in whichit has a direct action, like that
of the integral system of truth,justice, reparation of the repetition, if
it does not respond in scenarios thatit has managed itself, like that of

(36:22):
the negotiation with LLM, how itwill respond to scenarios to which it is
giving them the sword. And I' m not just referring to the subject
of Mexican cartels, I' malso talking about how it' s turning
its back on the territories where todaydissidents, peasants, blacks, indigenous people,

(36:44):
live side by side. Rather,pure Colombia, you read Colombia.
Then you don' t get tosee And then, Daniel the ban on
this question that I' m goingto leave you so that, as they
say, there' s that wayto dance the top over the nail.
What' s going to happen ifMexican cartels 20 years from now have taken

(37:05):
over Colombian territories. How a ColombianState is supposed to sit down to negotiate
with a foreign organization within its ownterritory. Then one says, no,
because the first thing is that youdefinitely have to fight them. But when
it is going to start to fightthem, when it is going to start

(37:28):
then to try to manage a moredirect relationship of the victims with the signatories
to see which agreements are reached,because it is still a possibility that real
agreements will be established, that therewill again be negotiating tables within the integral
system, of per se, reparation, a repetition and that see if it
comes to agreements, to see ifat least we can get out of the

(37:52):
commitments that we have with the systemand with the HEB, because obviously not
everyone will be equal and happy Vanila, But that is a political agreement to
reach, for at least a consensus. We' ll have to swallow some
nicknames from the side, from theside and from the side. But the
idea is to get everything that's going on inside the je to work.
But the country' s not goingto be in good shape, Daniela,

(38:15):
and then the victims are going toremain victims for the rest of their
lives. Those who are victims todayare going to have children who are going
to be victims and their great-grandchildren and grandchildren and great- grandchildren are
going to remain victims. It seemsthat it is a spiral, then,
of violence and pain that we werenever going to get out of. I
believe that the conclusion is that weare not going anywhere and, unfortunately,

(38:37):
the political moment in the country willnot allow it to be built into an
agreement like the one we already have. I am a supporter that the agreement
that was built was the best possibleagreement for the country to move forward,
to build a clear political project andto have a negotiated exit from the conflict.

(38:58):
But the moment that will not allowit and that is, of course,
the responsibility of the government in officebut also of how the country left
the past government, which, unfortunately, the media have come out a little
bit of that narrative to blame theentire Petro government, without saying that Petro
is doing it wonderfully, because itis not. I have a lot of

(39:19):
reservations, as we have said inrecent programmes, but I believe it is
a hindrance to the implementation of thepeace agreement. It is seeing today,
then, the consequences and more whenthe current government wants to be ambitious and
basically get on the negotiating bus allover the world without having a clear strategy,
without having clear parameters, then,as always here, we leave with

(39:43):
many more questions than answers already inthe next program of this first season we
will begin to make closure also onthose breaches that have been given to the
signatories of peace, because everything hasto be said in a process of agreement,
in a process of rhino negotiation,let us say that it is expected
that the parties will comply. Ofcourse, everyone clum will comply and everyone

(40:06):
will go ahead, but let ussay that it is also part of a
process that the parties, for somereason or another, are beginning to fail.
The problem is when these failures arecaused by a question of political will.
But there' ll be time totalk about it. Alejandro, thank
you so much for joining me onthis show. We say goodbye in this

(40:29):
penultimate episode of this season here interritory and we hear each other in a
forthcoming broadcast. O o o oo o lomo de mule, chalupa,

(41:32):
campero, moto o avineta. Wetraveled Colombia from south to north and from
east to west. Its inhabitants plottedwith temple and barrack the abandonment and changes
of their territories. Thank you forgetting on the territorializing ship and having accompanied
us this journey through the land ofthe Olvido Urrosabio Radio A presented territory