7 October 2026

“Colombia’s landmark restorative measures with respect to that conflict, now underway, are a global achievement for transitional justice,” said Volker Turk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 

Since campaigning for the presidency, Abelardo de la Espriella has advocated a hard-line approach to security and has been a vocal critic of aspects of the 2016 Peace Accord, particularly the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), the transitional justice system created by the 2016 Peace Accord. 

Before taking office, De la Espriella announced a significant restructuring of the institutions responsible for peace policy and implementation. This included the closure of the Office of the High Commissioner for Peace and the Unit for Implementation of the Final Agreement, alongside the Presidential Council for National Reconciliation and the Presidential Council for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. The Government has also ended the Total Peace, the dialogue processes with all armed groups that was introduced by Petro’s government.  

These institutional changes have been accompanied by proposed reductions in the resources available for implementing the Peace Accord. An analysis by Colombia’s Defensoría del Pueblo of the draft 2027 national budget found that resources identified for peacebuilding would fall from COP 20.56 trillion (£4.78 billion) in 2026 to COP 12.94 trillion (£3.01 billion) in 2027—a reduction of 37%. As the Peace Accord was designed to be delivered in an integrated manner a 37% reduction will therefore impact key components of the Peace Accord, including commitments for access to land and legalisation of land titles, projects to transform regions most impacted by the conflict, and reincorporation of former combatants.  This proposal will go through two additional processes, in the Senate and House of Representatives, before final approval.

The reductions have raised particular concerns because the 2016 Peace Accord was designed to address both the consequences and the structural causes of Colombia’s armed conflict. The different components of the Peace Accord were intended to reinforce one another. Fragmented implementation of the Peace Accord focusing mainly on security and military efforts, risks failing to address the conditions that allowed violence to emerge in the first place. 

Transitional Justice System

“Ten years since the signing of Colombia’s historic Peace Agreement, these [restorative] measures are helping advance the rights of victims of the country’s devastating armed conflict, and paving the way for truth, justice, reparations and sustainable peace and security” said Türk. 

One of the most significant areas of concern is the future functioning of the JEP. The transitional justice system is constitutionally protected and cannot simply be abolished by the government. However, its ability to fulfil its mandate depends upon adequate resources. 

The JEP requested COP 947.6 billion (£220.5 million) for 2027, while the Government’s draft budget allocated COP 821.8 billion (£191.2 million). At the first Congressional debate, a reduction of COP 170.000 million was approved (£39.6 million), COP 100.000 (£23.3 million) of which are said to go to the ordinary justice system. JEP President Alejandro Ramelli has warned that cuts of this scale could affect investigations, victim participation and even the JEP’s basic operations. The final budget is due to be approved by 20 October 2026. 

The reduction of JEP’s capacity to operate effectively and independently would, above all, significantly impact the victims, which are at the heart of Colombia’s transitional justice system. The Peace Accord recognises them not only as victims of the armed conflict but as rights-holders entitled to truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition. Victim participation is therefore not an additional element of the JEP’s work: it is fundamental to the model itself. 

The JEP’s restorative justice system also seeks to ensure that those responsible for the most serious crimes contribute to repairing the harm caused. This requires meaningful participation by victims, including in proceedings that can take place far from where they live. As Ramelli has warned in discussing the potential impact of budget reductions, practical constraints on resources can translate directly into constraints on victims’ ability to participate. 

Dangerous Reform Proposes to Allow Military Justice System to Review JEP Decisions

The cut by the Senate put forward by el Movimiento de Salvación Nacional (The National Salvation Movement) a party that supported the election of the current President, was accompanied by another proposal, a constitutional reform to subject sentences handed down by the JEP against members of the security forces, to be automatically reviewed by the Military Criminal Justice System.  

This reform would mean that the Military Justice System was investigating its own members, something that has been criticised by Amnesty International as being a conflict of interest. It could also lead to systemic impunity in respect to human rights violations. Allowing military tribunals to review final JEP sentences, particularly as they concern systematic human rights abuses, war crimes and crimes against humanity, like the “false positives” scandal (where soldiers murdered thousands of civilians to inflate combat body counts), raises the risk that severe state-sponsored crimes will be downplayed, overturned, or shielded from meaningful accountability.  

International human rights law dictates that military courts should never have jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity. Subverting transitional judicial authority to a military body violates Colombia’s treaties under the Rome Statute and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 

The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which operates under the principle of complementarity, officially closed its 17-year preliminary examination into Colombia only because the Colombian state committed to genuinely execute justice through the JEP. The ICC halts its investigations if domestic courts are willing and able to prosecute international crimes. If this congressional review allows military courts to override JEP sentences and dilute accountability, the ICC could determine that Colombia is failing to meet its obligations, potentially reopening an international investigation into Colombia’s military commanders. 

The JEP is also behind its envisaged schedule, and its lifespan might well need to be extended. This is of crucial importance for cases like macro-case 11 which was the last to be opened. It is a ground-breaking case globally, as it addresses conflict related sexual and gender-based violence. There are rumoured to be moves afoot to stop any attempts to extend the lifespan of the JEP, originally in place for 15 years.  

ABColombia considers that if the JEP decisions are subjected to review by the Military Justice System that the ICC should look again at Colombia and considers reopening the Colombia Case.