Abstract
The deprivation of physical liberty in the context of NIACs has stimulated research and publication in the field of IHL for several years. Within the Colombian transitional justice process, where conduct related to a NIAC spanning for more than half a century are currently being prosecuted, the legality of several instances of deprivation of physical liberty by FARC-EP, a non-state armed group, against State armed forces, is a relevant object of study. An important point of departure for the authors is their understanding of the catalyst role played by the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, given the active participation of those allegedly responsible, the victims and the communities in the legal qualification of the conducts under examination. With this case in mind, the authors analyse the IHL regulation over deprivation of physical liberty in relation to three different moments: (i) retention; (ii) captivity; (iii) and release. Considering the developments and gaps remaining in the international regulation, the purpose of this work is to advance an interpretation proposal of this phenomenon based on the complementary interaction of the relevant norms in the Colombian transitional justice model and the complex realities of armed conflicts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Peace Agreement for the Termination of the Conflict and the Building of a Stable and Lasting Peace signed 24 November 2016.
- 2.
Legislative Act 01 from 2017, April 2017, Article 5.
- 3.
Government of Colombia Unit for the attention and integral reparation for victims. https://www.unidadvictimas.gov.co/es/registro-unico-de-victimas-ruv/37394. Accessed 13 November 2016.
- 4.
Law 1957 from 2019, Statutory Law on the Administration of Justice in the JEP, 6 July 2019, Article 20.
- 5.
JEP, Criterio y Metodología de Priorización de Casos y Situaciones. https://www.jep.gov.co/Documents/CriteriosYMetodologiaDePriorizacion.pdf. Accessed 13 November 2021. [Criteria and Methodology for Prioritization of Cases and Situations].
- 6.
JEP, Case No. 01. Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty committed by the FARC-EP, To take cognizance of Case No. 001, based on Report No. 2 presented by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, entitled “Illegal retention of persons by the FARC-EP”, 4 July 2018, (Macro case 001).
- 7.
FARC Declaration from 14 September 2020.
- 8.
JEP, Case No. 01. Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty committed by the FARC-EP, Court Order No. 019 of 2021, Determine the Acts and Conduct attributable to former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP for hostage-taking and other serious deprivations of liberty, and place them at their disposal, 26 January 2021, (Macro case 001).
- 9.
Legislative Act 01 above No. 2 Article 5, (Legislative Act 01 of 2017) (Article 22).
- 10.
- 11.
Even the views that are based upon the necessity of redefining whether IHL or law enforcement are the appropriate standards for determining the legitimacy of targeting or detention, see: Hakimi 2012.
- 12.
- 13.
ICRC undated-b.
- 14.
- 15.
Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 [GC III]; Crawford 2010, p. 213.
- 16.
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287, 41,42, 43, 78, 135 [GC IV].
- 17.
CG IV Article 76.
- 18.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, 45 (2) [AP I].
- 19.
- 20.
ICRC undated-b (emphasis added).
- 21.
- 22.
The legal issues pertaining to the deprivation of physical liberty of civilians are outside of the scope of this chapter.
- 23.
(i) Crawford 2012, (ii) Commentaries to GC III 2020.
- 24.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 43 (2).
- 25.
Corn 2011, Stan. 253, Homeland & Nat'l Sec. L. Rev. 1 (2014).
- 26.
Common article 3 (CA 3).
- 27.
Commentaries to common article 3, (Commentaries CA 3) para 866 (emphasis added).
- 28.
Ibid.
- 29.
- 30.
GC III, Article 12. Commentaries to GC III (2020), para 1510 and following.
- 31.
Commentaries to GC III, para 1512.
- 32.
Commentaries to GC III, para 1197, 1370 and 1446.
- 33.
CICR, IHL Data Base, rule 99. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule99. Accessed 14 November 2021. Commentaries to common article 3, para 719.
- 34.
ICRC undated-a.
- 35.
Ibid.
- 36.
Ibid.
- 37.
- 38.
ICJ, Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the territory of Palestine, 9 July 2004, (Palestine case) para 106, IACHR, Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of 23 November 2004. Series C No. 118, IACHR, Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 15 February 2017, among others.
- 39.
Although customary IHL Rule No. 99 only provides for non-arbitrariness, in its interpretation reference is made to the need for the causes triggering the deprivation of liberty to be pre-established in the law, thereby implicitly incorporating the legality requirement. ICRC undated-a.
- 40.
TSC Mohammed et al. v Ministry of Defence, judgement, 17 January 2017, UKSC 2015/0218. See also Acosta forthcoming.
- 41.
ICRC (undated) United Kingdom, The Case of Serdar, Mohammed (High Court Judgement) https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-kingdom-case-serdar-mohammed-high-court-judgment. Accessed 14 November 2021. See also Acosta forthcoming.
- 42.
TSC Mohammed et al. v Ministry of Defence, above n 40 para 242.
- 43.
Ibid., para 243.
- 44.
Ibid., para 244.
- 45.
Ibid., para 245.
- 46.
Ibid., para 246.
- 47.
- 48.
Cawthorne and Akande 2014.
- 49.
Macak 2014.
- 50.
Ibid.
- 51.
The Court of Appeals highlighted: (i) the absence of an express authorization in article 3 common to the GCs or in APII, as evidence that the State parties did not intend such an expansion of IHL; (ii) from IHL rules it is not possible to determine the scope of such an authorization, nor the procedures to follow in order to carry out a lawful detention under IHL; that the purpose of article 3 common to the GCs “is to protect individuals rather than to establish a legal framework”; finally, the Court of Appeals expressed the view that such an authorization does not exist in customary international law either. See: ibid., 107 para 242.
- 52.
TSC Mohammed et al. v Ministry of Defence, above n 40. Lawrence and Akande 2014.
- 53.
- 54.
Regarding the application of the IHL principles, see: Sivakumaran 2012, pp. 242–244.
- 55.
Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907 (The Hague Convention 1907). Additional Protocols of 1977, and the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
- 56.
ICRC undated-a, Rules 1 and 6.
- 57.
Ibid. Rule 14.
- 58.
- 59.
On this matter, as expressed by Professor Ryan Goodman in relation to the detention of civilians (which is not the subject of this text), a rigorous distinction must be made between civilians who participate in hostilities and those who may be sympathizers of a group but do not participate. The protection of the latter is governed by special rules under the IHL, and has caused serious discussions in the context of the detentions carried out by the United States in the conflict with Al-Qaeda; see also: Goodman 2009, pp. 48–74.
- 60.
ICRC undated-a, Rules 15 and 22.
- 61.
- 62.
Common article 3 1(d).
- 63.
Commentaries CA 3 above n 27 para 717 and following.
- 64.
Ibid., para 720.
- 65.
ICRC, undated-a, Rule 87; GC I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in Field, 12 August 1949 (GCI) Article 12, 143; Geneva Convention on Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, (GC II) Article 12 and 144; GC III above n 15, article 13, 208, GC IV above n 16 Articles 5,27 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 8 June 1977 (Protocol I) Article 75(1); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 8 June 1977, (Protocol II), article 4(1).
- 66.
ICRC commentary, 592.
- 67.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 87, Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3, GC III above n 15, Article 16. GC IV above n 16, Article 13.
- 68.
Common Article 3, (Protocol II) (2.1).
- 69.
ICRC commentary, 587.
- 70.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 90; GC III above n 15, article 17. GC I, above n 65, Article 50, Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 1949, 12 August 1949; Article 51. GC III above n 15, Article 130 GC IV above n 16 article 147. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 12 July 1998, (in force from July 2002), (ICC Statute), Article 8(2)(a)(ii) and (iii) and (c) (i); Protocol I above n 18, Article 75(2).
- 71.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 93, Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3, ICTY, Prosecutor v Anto Furundzija, judgement, 10 December 1998. (Furundzija case). ICTY Prosecutor v Dragoljub Kuranac Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic, judgement, 22 February 2001. (Kuranac case); ICTR, Prosecutor v Jean Paul Akayesu, judgement, 2 September 1998, (Akayesu case), ICTY, Prosecutor v Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazin Delic, Esad Landzo, judgement. 16 November 1998, (Delalic case).
- 72.
Commentaries CA 3, para 664 and following and 696 and following.
- 73.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 121, Protocol II above n 65, article 5 (1) and (2) (c) ICRC Press Release No. 1504, practice in the context of a non-international armed conflict. Memorandum on Respect of International Humanitarian Law in Angola and Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Operation Turquoise.
- 74.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 119 and 120.
- 75.
Ibid.
- 76.
ICRC, IHL Database, 123; Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, Article XI; Agreement on the Military Aspects of the Peace Settlement annexed to the Dayton Accords, Article IX, also see Agreement between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the Exchange of Prisoners. Agreement No. 2 on the Implementation of the Agreement of 22 May 1992, between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Agreement No. 3 on the ICRC Plan of Action between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section IV.
- 77.
Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, see Sect. 3.1.
- 78.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 125. Protocol II above n 65 Article 5 (2) (b) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rule 37; European Prison Rules, Rule 43(1), Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 15.
- 79.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 126. Also see Philippines, Joint Circular on Adherence to International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Rwanda Prison Order, Convention on the Rights of the Child, entered into force 2 September 1990. Article 37 (c).
- 80.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 127, Protocol II, above n 65 Article 4 (1), Secretary General, Report on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone.
- 81.
Pejic 2005.
- 82.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 47.
- 83.
GC III, above n 15, Article 118.
- 84.
GC IV, above n 16, Article 132, Protocol I above n 18 Article 75.
- 85.
Ibid. Article 133.
- 86.
Commentaries CA 3.
- 87.
Pejic 2005.
- 88.
Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. E/CN. 4/2004/3, 15 December 2003, para 60; UN Human Rights Committee, García Lanza de Netto v Uruguay, 17 March-3 April 1980; African Commission on Human Rights and Peoples Rights, Pagnoulle v Cameroon, Comm. No. 39/90, (1997); African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria (148/96), UN Human Rights Committee Torres Ramírez v Uruguay, 13 February 1977.
- 89.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 99, rule interpretation, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule99. Accessed 14 November 2021.
- 90.
- 91.
ICRC, IHL Database, Rule 96. Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3, para b, GC IV, above n 16, Article 34 and 147. Protocol I, above n 18 Article 75(2) (C) Protocol II above n 65 Article 4. (2) (c).
- 92.
ICC Statute above n 70, Article 8, Statute of the Nuremberg Military Court. article 6 (b), 8 August 1945, article 6 (b); Statute of the international Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, (ICTY Statute), Article 2, Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone above n 80 Article 3.
- 93.
ICC Elements of the Crimes. Elementos de los crímenes. CPI; ICTY Prosecutor v Kordíc and Cerkez, Judgement, 26 February 2001, IT-95-14/2-T, In the same sense see: TPIY, The Prosecutor v Kordíc and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-T, Trial Chamber, 26 February 2001; Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon, Gbao, Judgement, 2 march 2009, (Case No. SCSL-04-15-T), (Sesay Case) International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 17 December 1979.
- 94.
Special Court for Sierra Leone, Sesay case 2009, above n 93 Appeals, para 598.
- 95.
ICTY, The Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic, judgement, 24 March 2016, IT-95-5/18-T, ICTY The Prosecutor V. Sesay, Kallon, Gbao above n 93, ICTY, The Prosecutor v Tihomir Blascki, Judgement, 3 March 2000, IT-95-14-T.
- 96.
Commentaries CA 3, para 649.
- 97.
- 98.
Special Court for Sierra Leone, Sesay case above n 93, para 596–601.
- 99.
Ibid.
- 100.
Legislative Act 01, above n 2 Article 5. Law 1957 of 2019, above n 4 Article 23.
- 101.
Legislative Act 01, above n 2 Article 5, Article 22.
- 102.
CNMH 2013.
- 103.
Court Order No. 002 of July 2018, above n 7.
- 104.
Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgement SU 599/2019, 11 December 2019, Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgement C-007/2018, 1 March 2018, SCJ, Judgement, 4 November 2004, ID 390825, SCJ, Judgement, 19 February 2009, ID 381903, CNMH 2013.
- 105.
Macro case 001 2021, above n 8, Peace Agreement for the Termination of the Conflict and the Building of a Stable and Lasting Peace, signed 24 November 2016, p. 153.
- 106.
Ibid., p. 31 and following.
- 107.
Ibid., p. 80 and following.
- 108.
Accordingly, 18 former FARC-EP leaders, who were part of its Secretariat, were bound to the investigation.
- 109.
Macro case 001 2021, above n 8, paras 263–284.
- 110.
Ibid., paras 285–378.
- 111.
Ibid., paras 379 and following.
- 112.
Ibid., paras 446–579.
- 113.
Ibid., paras 580–666.
- 114.
Ibid., paras 384, 386. This decision to modify the objectives of the captivity was expressed by alias Raul Reyes in NTC Noticias, in May 1998.
- 115.
Macro case 001 2021, above n 8, para 385.
- 116.
Ibid.
- 117.
Gaceta 424/2020, Draft for Law 099/2000, Article 1.
- 118.
- 119.
Macro case 001 2021, above n 8, para 388.
- 120.
Ibid.
- 121.
Ibid.
- 122.
The determination is only preliminary since Auto 019 is subject to observations by both victims and former members of FARC-EP. See: Acosta et al. (2021), ObservaJEP ¿Cómo funciona la JEP? http://observajep.com/index.php?xid=8&xstr=abc-del-sivjrnr. Accessed 14 November 2021. [How does the JEP work?].
- 123.
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544.
- 124.
Macro case 001 2021, above n 8, para 717.
- 125.
JEP, Case No. 01. Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty committed by the FARC-EP, Court Order No. 019 of 2021, Determine the Acts and Conduct attributable to former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP for hostage-taking and other serious deprivations of liberty, and place them at their disposal, 26 January 2021, (Macro case 001).
- 126.
Ibid., para 1068.
- 127.
JEP, Case No. 01. Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty committed by the FARC-EP, Substantive pronouncement on the observations presented to Order No. 244 of 2021 competence of the Recognition Chamber, 19 October 2021, (Macro case 001).
- 128.
Ibid., para 162.
- 129.
Ibid., para 163.
- 130.
Ibid., para 169.
- 131.
Peace Agreement for the Termination of the Conflict and the Building of a Stable and Lasting Peace signed 23 November 2016. Part 5. 1; Legislative act 01 of 2017, above n 2 Article 12, Law 1957 of 2019, above n 4, Article 13.
- 132.
This is developed by Professor Daragh Murray, who demonstrates that an interpretation whereby there is an impossibility of detention by non-state armed groups is contrary to the object and purpose of IHL. See also: Murray 2017.
- 133.
- 134.
JEP, Case No. 01. Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty committed by the FARC-EP, Court Order No. 019 of 2021, Determine the Acts and Conduct attributable to former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP for hostage-taking and other serious deprivations of liberty, and place them at their disposal, 26 January 2021, (Macro case 001).
- 135.
FARC-EP did not discuss the occurrence or gravity of these conducts, but rather the figure of responsibility that would be used (command responsibility). For this reason, this discussion will not be discussed in depth in this text. See also: Former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP, “Response and observations to Auto 019 of 26 January 2021 by former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP”, appearing in Case 001 “Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty”.
- 136.
Public letter of request of forgiveness: Former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP, 14 September 2020.
- 137.
Legislative Act 01, above n 2 Article 5. Law 1957 of 2019, above n 4, Article 23.
- 138.
Macro case 001 2021, above n 8.
- 139.
JEP, Case No. 01. Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty committed by the FARC-EP, Resolves the appeal filed by the defence of the parties named in Order No. 19 of 2021 against the sixth paragraph of the operative part of Order No. 244 of 29 October 2021, (Macro case 001). Consequently, we are hopeful that this publication may contribute to the resolution of the relevant legal issues raised in case 001.
- 140.
JEP, Case No. 01. Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty committed by the FARC-EP, Court Order No. 019 of 2021, “Determine the Acts and Conduct attributable to former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP for hostage-taking and other serious deprivations of liberty, and place them at their disposal”, 26 January 2021, (Macro case 001), para 90; Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgement C-080/2018, 15 August 2018.
- 141.
Sivakumaran and Roberts 2012.
- 142.
In accordance with customary rule 15 of IHL, these rules imply: “constant care must be taken to avoid injury to the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects”.
- 143.
See Sect. 3.2.
- 144.
Heffes 2015, pp. 229–250.
References
Articles, Books and Other Sources
Acosta J (forthcoming) La detención o rentención en los conflictos armados no internacionales - reflexiones sobre el caso colombiano [Detention or Imprisonment in Non-International Armed Conflicts - reflections on the Colombian case]. In: Desafíos del Derecho Internacional Humanitario en Colombia Tomo III (ed) Universidad Externado de Colombia, pp 267–328.
BBC MUNDO (2011) Colombia: FARC reconocen que tienen “prisioneros de guerra” [FARC admit that they have POW]. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/ultimas_noticias/2012/12/121202_ultnot_americalatina_colombia_farc_secuestro_tsb. Accessed 14 November 2021.
Bugnion F (2003) Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Non-International Armed Conflict. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol 6: 167–198.
Caracol (2000) Presentan ley de canje de guerrilleros por policías y militares secuestrados. https://caracol.com.co/radio/2000/10/11/nacional/0971244000_095721.html. Accessed 13 November 2021.
Casalin D (2011) Taking prisoners: reviewing the international humanitarian law grounds for deprivation of liberty by armed opposition groups, 93 International Review of the Red Cross 743.
Cawthorne L, Akande D (2014) Does IHL Provide a Legal Basis for Detention in Non-International Armed Conflicts?, https://www.ejiltalk.org/does-ihl-provide-a-legal-basis-for-detention-in-non-international-armed-conflicts/. Accessed 14 November 2021.
Clapham A (2017) Detention by Armed Groups under International Law. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1698&context=ils. Accessed 15 November 2021.
CNMH (2013) Una Sociedad Secuestrada, https://centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Una-sociedad-secuestrada.pdf. Accessed 14 November 2021. [A Kidnapped Society].
Corn G (2011) Thinking the Unthinkable: Has the time come to offer Combatant immunity to Non State Actors? CORN 22 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 253.
Council of Europe (2006) European Prison Rules, https://rm.coe.int/european-prison-rules-978-92-871-5982-3/16806ab9ae. Accessed 13 March 2022.
Crawford E (2010) The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict. OUP, Oxford.
Crawford E (2012) Combatants and prisoners of war. Hot Topics: Legal Issues in Plain Language, no 80.
Droege C (2007) The interplay between international humanitarian law and international human rights law in situations of armed conflict. Isr. L. Rev., vol. 40, p. 310.
El Espectador (2016) Los prisioneros de guerra, la Estrategia de las FARC que surgió en 1996 [POW the strategy of the FARC that emerged in 1996]. https://www.elespectador.com/colombia-20/paz-y-memoria/los-prisioneros-de-guerra-la-estrategia-de-las-farc-que-surgio-en-1996-article/. Accessed 14 November 2021.
El País (2012) Liberados los 10 últimos uniformados colombianos en poder de las FARC [Last 10 Colombian soldiers held by FARC released], https://elpais.com/internacional/2012/04/02/actualidad/1333383664_813722.html, Accessed 14 November 2021.
El Tiempo (1999) https://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-899099, Accessed 13 November 2021.
García C, Vílchez (2021) Detention of Persons in Non-International Armed Conflicts: Analysis from the Relation between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. https://www.unisabana.edu.co/programas/unidades-academicas/facultad-de-derecho-y-ciencias-politicas/anuariodih/articulos/articulos-segunda-edicion/la-detencion-de-personas-en-conflictos-armados-no-internacionales/#_ftnref1. Accessed 14 November 2021.
Goodman R (2009) The Detention of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://doi.org/10.2307/20456721. Accessed 7 May 2022.
Greenwood C (1983) The relationship between ius ad bellum and ius in bello. Review of International Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1983, pp. 221–234, at 221.
Hakimi M (2012) A Functional Approach to Targeting and Detention. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2042172. Accessed 7 May 2022.
Heffes E (2015) Detentions by Armed Opposition Groups in Non-International Armed Conflicts: Towards a New Characterization of International Humanitarian Law, 20 J. Conflict & Sec. L. 229.
Heffes E (2020) Towards a Greater Respect of International Humanitarian Law: Usefulness, Content and Regulation of Special Agreements in Non-International Armed Conflicts. https://www.unisabana.edu.co/programas/unidades-academicas/facultad-de-derecho-y-ciencias-politicas/anuariodih/articulos/hacia-un-mayor-respeto-del-dih/?L=0. Accessed 14 November 2021.
Herrmann I, Palmieri J (2005) A haunting figure: The hostage through the ages. International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 87. N 857.
ICRC (undated-a) IHL Data Base Customary IHL. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home. Accessed 14 November 2021.
ICRC (undated-b) How does law protect in war? https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/detention. Accessed 14 November 2021.
ICRC (2014) Internment in armed conflict: Basic rules and challenges. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/internment-armed-conflict-basic-rules-and-challenges#.VJA1Y9LF810; https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/detention. Accessed 15 November 2021.
ICRC (2015) The International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies https://www.icrc.org/es/document/la-conferencia-internacional-de-la-cruz-roja-y-de-la-media-luna-roja. Accessed 13 March 2022.
ICRC (2021) Commentaries to Common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Cambridge University Press.
Kleffner J (2015) Operational Detention and The Treatment of Detainees. In: Gill TD, Fleck D (eds) The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.
La República (2012) Luego de 14 años de secuestro, 10 militares y policías regresaron a la libertad [After 14 years of kidnapping, 10 military and police officers returned to freedom], https://www.larepublica.co/economia/luego-de-14-anos-de-secuestro-10-militares-y-policias-regresaron-a-la-libertad-2006332. Accessed 14 November 2021.
Lawrence H, Akande D (2014) Does IHL Provide a Legal Basis for Detention in Non International Armed Conflicts? https://www.ejiltalk.org/does-ihl-provide-a-legal-basis-for-detention-in-non-international-armed-conflicts/. Accessed 14 March 2022.
Macak K (2014) No Legal Basis under IHL for Detention in Non-International Armed Conflicts? A Comment on Serdar Mohammed v. Ministry of Defence. https://www.ejiltalk.org/no-legal-basis-under-ihl-for-detention-in-non-international-armed-conflicts-a-comment-on-serdar-mohammed-v-ministry-of-defence/. Accessed 14 November 2021.
Mclachlan C (2005) The principle of systemic integration and article 31 (3)(c) of the Vienna Convention. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2005, vol. 54, no 2, p. 279–319.
Megiddo T (2019) Beyond Fragmentation: On International Law's Integrationist Forces. Yale J. Int'l L., vol. 44, p. 115.
Milanovic M (2014) High Court Rules that the UK Lacks IHL Detention Authority in Afghanistan, https://www.ejiltalk.org/high-court-rules-that-the-uk-lacks-ihl-detention-authority-in-afghanistan/. Accessed 14 November 2021.
Murray D (2017) Non-State Armed Groups, Detention Authority in Non-International Armed Conflict, and the Coherence of International Law: Searching for a Way Forward. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2866930. Accessed 7 May 2022.
Observa JEP ¿Cómo funciona la JEP? [How does the JEP work?] http://observajep.com/index.php?xid=8&xstr=abc-del-sivjrnr. Accessed 14 November 2021.
Opara L, Ogundare L (2019) Rethinking Existing Detention Laws and Policies in Non International Armed Conflicts under International Humanitarian Law. NAUJIL 10 (1) 2019:59–68.
Pejic J (2005) Procedural principles and safeguards for internment/ administrative detention in armed conflict and other situations of violence. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/irrc_858_pejic.pdf. Accessed 14 November 2021.
Rachovitsa A (2017) The principle of systemic integration in human rights law. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 2017, vol. 66, no 3, p. 557–588.
Rylatt J (2016) Attribution of Conduct in UN-Authorised International Military Operations: Serdar Mohammed before the Courts of England and Wales. Mil. L. & L. War Rev., vol. 55.
Sandoz Y, Swinarski C, Zimmermann B (eds) (1987) Commentary on the Additional Protocols. ICRC.
Sassòli M, Bouvier A, Quintin A (2011) How Does Law Protect in War? ICRC, 324–25.
Sivakumaran S (2012) The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict. Oxford University Press.
Sivakumaran S, Roberts A (2012) Lawmaking by Nonstate Actors: Engaging Armed Groups in the Creation of International Humanitarian Law. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1815853. Accessed 7 May 2022.
Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) (2018) Criteria and Methodology for the Prioritization of Cases and Situations the room for the recognition of Truth, Responsibility and Determination of Facts and Conducts.
Warren B (2017) Taking No Prisoners: The Need for an Additional Protocol Governing Detention in Non-International Armed Conflicts. 225 MIL. L. REV: 157–215.
Other Documents
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
FARC Declaration from 14 September 2020.
Former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP, Public letter of request for pardon. 14 September 2020.
Gaceta 424/2020, Draft for Law 099/2000, Article 1.
Government of Colombia Unit for the attention and integral reparation for victims. https://www.unidadvictimas.gov.co/es/registro-unico-de-victimas-ruv/37394. Accessed 13 November 2016.
ICJ, Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the territory of Palestine, 9 July 2004.
ICRC Press Release No 1504, practice in the context of a non-international armed conflict. Memorandum on Respect of International Humanitarian Law in Angola and Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Operation Turquoise.
Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons.
International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 17 December 1979.
Law 1957 from 2019, Statutory Law on the Administration of Justice in the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, 6 July 2019.
Legislative Act 01 from 2017, April 2017.
Philippines, Joint Circular on Adherence to International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights.
Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. E/CN. 4/2004/3, 15 December 2003.
Rwanda Prison Order, Convention on the Rights of the Child, enter into force 2 September 1990.
Secretary General, Report on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone.
Cases
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria (148/96).
African Commission on Human Rights and Peoples Rights, Pagnoulle v Cameroon, Comm. No. 39/90, (1997).
Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgement C-007/2018, March 1st 2018.
Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgement C-080/2018, August 15th, 2018.
Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgement SU 599/2019, December 11th, 2019.
Former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP, Response and observations to Auto 019 of January 26, 2021 by former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP, appearing in Case 001 “Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty”. 30 of April 2021.
ICRC United Kingdom, The Case of Serdar, Mohammed (High Court Judgement. https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-kingdom-case-serdar-mohammed-high-court-judgment. Accessed 14 November 2021.
ICTR, Prosecutor v Jean Paul Akayesu, judgement, 2 September 1998.
ICTY, The Prosecutor v Sesay, Kallon, Gbao judgement 26 October 2009.
ICTY, The Prosecutor v Tihomir Blascki, Judgement, 3 March 2000, IT-95-14-T.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Anto Furundzija, judgement, 10 December 1998.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Dragoljub Kuranac Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic, judgement, 22 February 2001.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Kordíc and Cerkez, Judgement, 26 February 2001, IT-95-14/2-T.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazin Delic, Esad Landzo, judgement. 16 November 1998.
ICTY, The Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic, judgement, 24 March 2016, IT-95-5/18-T.
JEP, Case No. 001, Court Order No, 002 of 2018a, 4 July 2018a.
JEP, Case No. 01. Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty committed by the FARC-EP, Determine the Acts and Conduct attributable to former members of the Secretariat of the FARC-EP for hostage-taking and other serious deprivations of liberty, and place them at their disposal, 26 of January 2021.
JEP, Case No. 01. Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty committed by the FARC-EP, To take cognizance of Case No. 001, based on Report No. 2 presented by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, entitled “Illegal retention of persons by the FARC-EP”, 04 of July 2018.
JEP, Case No. 01. Hostage-taking and serious deprivation of liberty committed by the FARC-EP, Substantive pronouncement on the observations presented to Order No. 244 of 2021b competence of the Recognition Chamber., 19 October 2021.
SCJ, Judgement, 19 February 2009, ID 381903.
SCJ, Judgement, 4 November 2004, ID 390825.
Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v . Sesay, Kallon, Gbao, Judgement, 2 march 2009, (Case No. SCSL-04-15-T).
TSC Mohammed et al v Ministry of Defence, judgement, 17 January 2017, UKSC 2015/0218.
UN Human Rights Committee, García Lanza de Netto v Uruguay, viewa, 17 March-3 April 1980.
UN Human Rights Committee, Torres Ramírez v Uruguay, 13 February 1977.
Treaties
African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, July 1981.
Agreement between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the Exchange of Prisoners.
Agreement No 2 on the Implementation of the Agreement of 22 May 1992, between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Agreement No 3 on the ICRC Plan of Action between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Agreement on the Military Aspects of the Peace Settlement annexed to the Dayton Accords.
American Convention on Human Rights, 22 November 1969.
Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907.
European Convention on Human Rights, 1 October 1994.
Geneva Convention I on Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1949, 12 August 1949.
Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949.
Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949.
Peace Agreement for the Termination of the Conflict and the Building of a Stable and Lasting Peace signed 23 November 2016.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of the 12 August 1949, a relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (entered into force 7 December 1978.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 12 of July 1998, (in force on July 2002).
Statute of the international Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Adopted 25 may 1993 by resolution 827.
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Security Council resolution 1315 of 2000.
Statute of the Nuremberg Military Court.
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544.
Acknowledgments
We specially thank Giovanny Vega for his assistance in translating this chapter and for his important substantive comments, and Ana María Gómez for her research support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Acosta-López, J.I., Idárraga, A. (2023). Prisoners of War, Taking of Hostages and the Colombian Armed Conflict: Challenges Arising Out of Conflictive Understandings of IHL by Different Actors in Particular Contexts. In: Krieger, H., Kalmanovitz, P., Lieblich, E., Mignot-Mahdavi, R. (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Volume 24 (2021). Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-559-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-559-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-558-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-559-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)