Series on the rights of the victims and the application of Law 975. Bulletin No 31

1. COMISIÓN COLOMBIANA DE JURISTAS Con el apoyo de:
Organización no gubernamental con status consultivo ante la ONU
Filial de la Comisión Internacional de Juristas (Ginebra) y de la Comisión Andina de Juristas (Lima)
PERSONERÍA JURÍDICA: RESOLUCIÓN 1060, AGOSTO DE 1988 DE LA ALCALDÍA MAYOR DE BOGOTÁ UNIÓN EUROPEA
Bulletin No 31: Series on the rights of the victims and the application of Law 975
Extradition leaves the victims a long way from truth, justice, and reparation
This past August 2008, the Magistrate for Guarantee Control, Álvaro Cerón Coral,
designated for the trials carried out in the framework of the special proceedings created by
Law 975 of 2005, summoned the paramilitary leader Salvatore Mancuso Gomez to a
preliminary hearing in which he sought to charge him with massacres such as the one in El
Salado (Bolívar), for which the ordinary justice system had already charged him as the
presumed perpetrator. Seeking the presence of the extradited paramilitary at the hearing, the
Magistrate made contact with the Ministry of Foreign Relations and the Ministry of the
Interior and Justice. The representatives of the victims of the cases for which that the
Magistrate sought to charge the extradited paramilitaries were also summoned.
On September 1 took place the preliminary hearing for attribution of charges against
Salvatore Mancuso Gomez. Present at the hearing were the State prosecutor for the case,
an agent of the public ministry, Mancuso‟s lawyer, and representatives of the victims. At
that moment, the parties to the action found out that the Colombian government had not
summoned the paramilitary leader to appear in court. The national government‟s contempt
of court led the Magistrate for Guarantee Control to announce a possible criminal or
disciplinary action by the court, as the government‟s omission constituted disregard of a
court order and undue interference in the administration of justice.
The Colombian government had announced that the extraditions would not interfere with
the processes carried out under Law 975 and had committed itself to enter judicial
cooperation agreements with United States authorities in order to guarantee it.1 To that end,
commitments were announced by both the Colombian and the U.S. governments. Through
an exchange of notes, they agreed that the Colombian authorities charged with processing
requests for legal assistance by judicial authorities are the Prosecutor General‟s Office and
the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, and that the U.S. authority assigned for that same
purpose is the office of the judicial attaché of the Embassy of the United States in
Colombia, who will convey the Colombian state‟s requests for judicial cooperation
regarding the extradited paramilitaries to the Office of International Affairs of the
Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.
As can be observed, the Magistrate for Guarantee Control set in motion the proceedings
ordered by the Colombian state in order to carry out the preliminary hearing for the
attribution of charges, and the Colombian government ignored the judge‟s request. Some

The present publication has been prepared with the support of the European Union and its content is the sole
responsibility of the Colombian Commission of Jurists. In no way should it be thought to reflect the point of
view of the European Union.
1
“Gobierno asegura que los „paras‟ extraditados continuarán en Justicia y Paz” (Government assures that the
extradited „paras‟ will continue in Justice and Peace), www.elespectador.com, May 13, 2008.
Calle 72 Nº 12-65 piso 7 PBX: (571) 3768200 – (571) 3434710 Fax : (571) 3768230
Email : ccj@coljuristas.org Website: www.coljuristas.org
Bogotá, Colombia

2. days later, at a meeting held by the Colombian Commission of Jurists with members of the
Embassy of the United States in Colombia, the U. S. officials pointed out that the Embassy
of the United States in Colombia had no knowledge of the order to appear in court,
confirming that the Colombian government never carried out the judge‟s request.
The one just described is not the only case of noncompliance by the Colombian state with
its obligations in the context of the processes against extradited paramilitaries for crimes
against humanity. On May 14, 2008, the national government sent a message to the Inter-
American Commission for Human Rights stating “that any legal benefit granted in the
United States would be contingent on cooperation with victims’ rights to truth, justice, and
reparation.” There has been no compliance on this commitment either. In the agreements
signed between U.S. authorities and some of the extradited paramilitaries – such as Ramiro
Vanoy, alias “Cuco Vanoy” and Javier Zuluaga Lindo, alias “Gordolindo,” in whose cases
the agreement has been abided by through their guilty sentences; Diego Alberto Ruiz
Arroyave, alias “el Primo” and Diego Fernando Murillo Bejarano, alias “Don Berna,” who
are being tried in U.S. courts – the condition was not stipulated regarding the obligation to
contribute effectively to Colombian justice in exchange for sentence reduction.
In addition to illustrating the noncompliance mentioned, the case of Ramiro Vanoy helps to
demonstrate the consequences of not having investigated and sanctioned the crimes against
humanity before extraditing the 16 paramilitaries to the United States. On Thursday,
October 9, 2008, the on-line version of the daily El Nuevo Herald reported that Ramiro
Vanoy would be the first extradited paramilitary to render his “free-version” testimony
from the United States. According to El Nuevo Herald, the proceedings had already been
planned, but the defense team of the extradited paramilitary expressed its opposition
because the paramilitary‟s defense lawyer was denied a visa to attend the hearing. As a
result, the defense team announced that “Cuco Vanoy” would not render testimony as long
as his right to defense was not guaranteed.
A few hours later that same day, the opposite was announced. Sixty year-old Ramiro Vanoy
would no longer participate in the proceedings under Law 975 of 2005. The reason: the
U.S. judge had sentenced him to 24 years in jail, far more than what the paramilitary had
expected. His lawyer argued before the media that Ramiro Vanoy would finish serving his
sentence in the United States at the age of 84 and, therefore, he had no incentive to tell the
truth in the process under Law 975 of 2005.
That same day the Colombian government reacted. The High Commissioner for Peace, in
an interview on the television program “Pregunta Yamid” (“Yamid Asks”) on the Canal
Uno channel, put forward that the sentence imposed in the framework of criminal
proceedings under Law 975 of 2005 (a maximum of eight years) should be deducted from
the jail sentence in the United States (24 years in the case of Ramiro Vanoy) – that is, if he
decides to continue under Law 975, Ramiro Vanoy, upon leaving United States prison,
would not have to serve a single day for the crimes against humanity he committed in
2

3. Colombia. In the opinion of the High Commissioner this would be the best guarantee and
the greatest incentive for such persons to reveal the truth.
The argument used by Commissioner Luis Carlos Restrepo may sound convincing, since it
presents a “solution” to the refusal by alias “Cuco Vanoy” to continue with the process –
that is, to his refusal to tell the “truth” about the crimes he committed. However, the
Commissioner‟s proposal diverts attention from the true reasons why truth, justice, and
reparation, at least in what concerns the crimes committed by that particular paramilitary,
risk remaining in indefinite impunity. The true reason is that before being extradited and if
they continued to commit crimes, the paramilitaries should have lost the benefits of Law
975 and should have been judged and condemned by ordinary justice in Colombia with
sentences much more severe than those imposed in the United States for drug-related
crimes, given the seriousness of their crimes in the country.
All of the above was to be expected since, as Prosecutor General Mario Iguarán
acknowledged, no concrete cooperation agreements exist between the United States and
Colombia regarding extradited paramilitaries. This means that there are no guarantees for
the victims in the sense that there no effective mechanisms are available to demand their
rights. That is why, several months after the extradition, none of the extradited
paramilitaries is still being tried by the Colombian authorities in the processes undertaken
for crimes against humanity.
But the Commissioner‟s proposal includes other worrisome elements. The cases of Ramiro
Vanoy and Javier Zuluaga Lindo, who were sentenced to more than 20 years, cannot be
taken as a parameter of what will happen to all the paramilitaries. It cannot be ruled out that
the other 16 extradited paramilitaries will be granted shorter sentences or even that these
two paramilitaries who have already been sentenced will be granted, with time, additional
benefits. This is why the Colombian government‟s proposal to deduct the sentence imposed
by the Colombian judges from the time to be served in U.S. prisons is very dangerous. The
fact cannot be overlooked that the press reported that it is probable that alias “Don Berna,”
in spite of the fact that the pre-agreements stipulate that his sentence will range between 27
and 33 years in prison, will be free of all charges of drug trafficking after, at most, eight
years in a U.S. prison.2
As an example of this, Carlos Mario Aguilar, alias “Rogelio,” negotiated his surrender to
the United States authorities this past January and is now walking free in U. S. streets.3 He
was the leader of a group of paid killers at the service of the paramilitaries known as the
“Envigado office” and was the right-hand man of the notorious paramilitary boss Diego
Fernando Murillo Bejarano, alias “Don Berna.”
2
“¿Sólo ocho años de cárcel?” (Only eight years in jail?), Semana Magazine, June 21, 2008.
3
“¿Visa a la impunidad?” (A visa to impunity?), Semana Magazine, July 26, 2008.
3

4. Furthermore, the United States ambassador in Colombia has illustrated his government‟s
position regarding the possibility that the sentences imposed on extradited paramilitaries in
his country will be reduced with the following question: “Do we want maximum sentences,
or do we want maximum cooperation in the future?” In the ambassador‟s view, severe
punishment inhibits their collaboration in the war against drug trafficking. This thinking is
valid for this U. S. official, since his government is interested essentially in the drug-related
crimes affecting his country. But immediate measures must be taken so that this does not
happen in the case of the paramilitary commanders who were recently extradited.
The way the Colombian state has handled extradition ignores the existing judicial
cooperation agreements such as the Inter-American Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance
in Criminal Matters, a treaty that took effect on April 14, 19964 and that allows - but, above
all, requires - that the criminal trials against the 16 postulants under Law 975 of 2005
extradited to the United States not be interrupted, nor the rights of the victims be affected.
In the same way, the mandates of international human rights law are blatantly ignored that
seek to prevent that serious crimes against humanity remain unpunished, among them the
Set of Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat
impunity,5 in particular Principle 19, which stipulates that “States shall undertake prompt,
thorough, independent and impartial investigations of violations of human rights and
international humanitarian law and take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators,
particularly in the area of criminal justice, by ensuring that those responsible for serious
crimes under international law are prosecuted, tried and duly punished.”
These instruments, which are there for the use of the Colombian government, are being
ignored; thus the extradition of the 16 postulants under Law 975 of 2005 to the United
States will prevent that the serious crimes for which they are accountable are properly
investigated.
The Colombian government‟s noncompliance with the commitments it assumed when it
decided to extradite an important group of paramilitaries in order to “prevent” that their
crimes remain unpunished sets a negative precedent as to the possibilities of the victims to
demand justice vis-à-vis the extradited paramilitaries. In order to solve this worrying
situation, the Colombian government must reconsider its decision to extradite more
paramilitaries and concern itself with fulfilling the State‟s obligations imposed by
international human rights law.
4
The Inter-American Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters was ratified by the United
States on May 1 2001 and by Colombia on April 12, 2002.
5
Approved by the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights, Resolution on Impunity Number
2005/81 (through which it makes note of the updated set of principles as guidelines to help the States to
develop effective measures to fight against impunity, recognizes the regional and national application of the
Principles, and adopts other arrangements to that end). Doc. ONU E/CN.4/RES/2005/81.
4

5. It is difficult to know what the government‟s intentions are with the massive extraditions of
the paramilitaries. On the one hand, it can be a way of preventing that the extradited
paramilitaries reveal other acts or alliances that could compromise other sectors of society.
Remember that at a hearing of the Supreme Court broadcast from the United States,
Salvatore Mancuso said that “if we do not tell the truth, the whole truth, those who are
truly guilty for the conflict are going to single out the guerrilla and the paramilitaries as
guilty.” 6 Or, on the other hand, the government might be seeking to favor the paramilitaries
so that they become free of sentences and processes in a relatively short time, both for drug
trafficking and for crimes against humanity.
The extradited paramilitaries must tell the whole truth about their crimes; they must repair
their victims, and serve sentences for these crimes in order to receive legal benefits in
exchange. The Colombian government and the state in general are obligated to guarantee
the necessary means toward that end. This is what the Constitutional Court ordered in its
Sentence C-370 of 2005, which reviewed the constitutionality of law 975 of 2005. Up to
the present, no victim has received reparation for the harm suffered through the crimes of
the paramilitary groups, and the 16 paramilitaries were extradited precisely because they
did not comply with what Law 975 of 2005 stipulates – that is, they did not tell the truth,
there is no justice, and there is no reparation for their crimes.
The information obtained about what is happening with the extradited paramilitaries allows
us to interpret the decision to extradite these 16 postulants to Law 975 of 2005 as a formula
to exculpate them from criminal responsibility – be it because they are being led away from
the possibility of continuing to give declarations about their crimes, as it is happening now
with the sentences imposed, or be it because they are granted generous benefits and in a
short time they are set free to roam the streets of the United States with no debt to justice.
According the Article 17 of the Rome Statute, this constitutes cause for the International
Criminal Court to decide to file charges in order to rectify the serious consequences of this
extradition for society. Probably only a decision in this sense could point to a different path
– one in which, on the basis of respect for the human rights of the victims, the imminent
impunity can be averted and non repetition can be guaranteed for Colombian society.
For more information, please contact Gustavo Gallón-Giraldo, Director of the CCJ, at Tel.
(571) 376 8200, Ext. 115.
Bogotá, October 21, 2008
6
“Mancuso dice que Auc. influyeron en elección presidencial” (Mancuso says that Auc influenced
presidential election), Semana Magazine, September 25, 2008.
5