Crímenes de lesa humanidad en Colombia. Un análisis desde la impunidad por la falta de inclusión en el Código Penal
Cargando...
Fecha
2023
Autores
Vega Suárez, Alexander
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Ediciones Universidad Simón Bolívar
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Resumen
Los crímenes de lesa humanidad son delitos internacionales que incluyen todo acto
inhumano y con escala exponencial, que puede ser cometido por el gobierno o por alguna
organización política o delincuencial que subyugue general y sistemáticamente a una
población civil. Frente a ello, pese a que el Estatuto de Roma, aprobado y ratificado por
Colombia mediante la Ley 742 de 2002, consagra los crímenes de lesa humanidad como
aquellas conductas delictivas sobre las que la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) puede tener
competencia; la comisión de tales delitos, como parte de un ataque generalizado y
sistemático, no se regula como tal en el territorio nacional.
Por consiguiente, las leyes 599 del 2000 y 906 de 2004, no reglamentan ni
contemplan el crimen de lesa humanidad ni sus conductas como s penales autónoms, salvo
por enunciar su imprescriptibilidad, en el artículo 83 del Código Penal. De este modo, la
administración de justicia no solo suele abrir espacios a la impunidad, al procesar tales
actos como delitos comunes.
En otras palabras, el hecho de subsumir los crímenes de lesa humanidad en otros
tipos penales se traduce en impunidad porquee , a que desconozca el principio de legalidad
al aplicar directamente el Estatuto de Roma, e incluso, a que el Gobierno Nacional siga
incumpliendo su deber de actualizar y adecuar la legislación interna.
Además, si un crimen de lesa humanidad se comete en Colombia, se prohíbe la
aplicación del principio de imprescriptibilidad en función a una norma constitucional cuya
interpretación debe prevalecer; además, la aplicación del principio de legalidad de la ley
penal implicaría que tales actos no se castiguen, pues ninguna persona debe ser juzgada
sino en virtud de los tipos penales que se encuentren establecidos previamente en la ley; y
en el evento en el que se pretendiera juzgar a alguien por actos contra la humanidad
cometidos antes de la vigencia de la Ley 742 de 2002, tampoco sería posible el castigo en
virtud de la proscripción de la retroactividad de la ley.
Entonces, una solución plausible partiría de cumplir la obligación de adecuación
legislativa en materia de derecho internacional, conforme los tratados y normas
internacionales adoptados y ratificados por Colombia; ello, sin dejar de lado que los
presupuesto aceptadosaceptados por la Corte Constitucional, en lo que respecta a la
imprescriptibilidad, son apropiados para evitar la impunidad por el paso del tiempo.
Sin embargo, esto no se traduce en la prevalencia una obligación explícita de
implementar los instrumentos, pues no se pretendería atentar contra la potestad y autonomía
nacional acerca de decidir las normas domesticas; lo que se busca es que a través de la
adecuación legislativa, Colombia reconozca -en la práctica- la competencia residual de la
CPI, y manifieste la voluntad y la posibilidad, mediante su propia legislación, de enjuiciar
los crímenes de lesa humanidad con capacidad similar a la de la CPI, traspasando cualquier
5
tipo de argumento o justificación que se oriente a la subsunción o a la infravaloración del
derecho internacional, del consuetudinario y del convencional, con el fin de pasar por alto
fórmulas de imprescriptibilidad y de evitación de la impunidad
Crimes against humanity are international crimes that include any inhuman act on an exponential scale, which may be committed by the government or by any political or criminal organization that generally and systematically subjugates a civilian population. In response, even though the Rome Statute, approved and ratified by Colombia through Law 742 of 2002, enshrines crimes against humanity as those criminal acts over which the International Criminal Court (ICC) may have jurisdiction; the commission of such crimes, as part of a widespread and systematic attack, is not regulated as such in the national territory. Consequently, Laws 599 of 2000 and 906 of 2004 do not regulate or contemplate the crime against humanity or its conduct as autonomous criminal norms, except for stating its non-applicability in article 83 of the Criminal Code. In this way, the administration of justice often opens the door to impunity, by prosecuting such acts as common crimes, because in addition to the possibility that the statute of limitations may operate, are often discussed within the framework of easily lengthy judicial processes within a traditional criminal model. In other words, subsuming crimes against humanity into other types of criminal law favours impunity because, in addition to the fact that it implies terms of limitation of criminal action defined (which goes against the purposes of the Rome Statute), a technical inaccuracy such as this may lead to discussions about the existence of legal loopholes and criminal ineffectiveness, coupled with the fact that this may lead to ignorance of the residual competence of the ICC, that the administration is unaware of the principle of legality when directly applying the Rome Statute, and even that the national government continues to fail in its duty to update and adapt domestic legislation. In addition, if a crime against humanity is committed in Colombia, the application of the principle of imprescriptibly is prohibited in accordance with a constitutional provision (art. 28) whose interpretation must prevail; in addition, the application of the principle of legality of criminal law would imply that such acts are not punished, since no person should be tried except by virtue of the criminal categories previously established in the law; and in the event that someone was tried for these acts against humanity committed prior to the entry into force of Law 742 of 2002, punishment under the prohibition of retroactivity of the law would not be possible either. This means that, in the presence of a conflict of principles, beyond declaring that, for example, article 83 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional, or that article 28 of the 6 Constitution is not in harmony with the purpose of the Rome Statute, what is important is to give a nomen iuris adjusted to the truth of the conduct that is generally and systematically committed against the civilian population. A plausible solution would then be to comply with the obligation of legislative adequacy in matters of international law, in accordance with the international treaties and norms adopted and ratified by Colombia; this, without neglecting that the budgets accepted by the Constitutional Court, as regards imprescriptibly, are appropriate to avoid impunity over time. However, this does not translate into the prevalence of an explicit obligation to implement the instruments, since it would not be intended to undermine the national power and autonomy to decide domestic norms; what is sought is that through legislative adaptation, Colombia recognizes, in practice, the residual competence of the ICC, and expresses the will and the possibility, through its own legislation, to prosecute crimes against humanity with a capacity similar to that of the ICC, transferring any kind of argument or justification that is oriented to the subsumption or undervaluation of international, customary and conventional law, in order to ignore formulas of nonapplicability and avoidance of impunity.
Crimes against humanity are international crimes that include any inhuman act on an exponential scale, which may be committed by the government or by any political or criminal organization that generally and systematically subjugates a civilian population. In response, even though the Rome Statute, approved and ratified by Colombia through Law 742 of 2002, enshrines crimes against humanity as those criminal acts over which the International Criminal Court (ICC) may have jurisdiction; the commission of such crimes, as part of a widespread and systematic attack, is not regulated as such in the national territory. Consequently, Laws 599 of 2000 and 906 of 2004 do not regulate or contemplate the crime against humanity or its conduct as autonomous criminal norms, except for stating its non-applicability in article 83 of the Criminal Code. In this way, the administration of justice often opens the door to impunity, by prosecuting such acts as common crimes, because in addition to the possibility that the statute of limitations may operate, are often discussed within the framework of easily lengthy judicial processes within a traditional criminal model. In other words, subsuming crimes against humanity into other types of criminal law favours impunity because, in addition to the fact that it implies terms of limitation of criminal action defined (which goes against the purposes of the Rome Statute), a technical inaccuracy such as this may lead to discussions about the existence of legal loopholes and criminal ineffectiveness, coupled with the fact that this may lead to ignorance of the residual competence of the ICC, that the administration is unaware of the principle of legality when directly applying the Rome Statute, and even that the national government continues to fail in its duty to update and adapt domestic legislation. In addition, if a crime against humanity is committed in Colombia, the application of the principle of imprescriptibly is prohibited in accordance with a constitutional provision (art. 28) whose interpretation must prevail; in addition, the application of the principle of legality of criminal law would imply that such acts are not punished, since no person should be tried except by virtue of the criminal categories previously established in the law; and in the event that someone was tried for these acts against humanity committed prior to the entry into force of Law 742 of 2002, punishment under the prohibition of retroactivity of the law would not be possible either. This means that, in the presence of a conflict of principles, beyond declaring that, for example, article 83 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional, or that article 28 of the 6 Constitution is not in harmony with the purpose of the Rome Statute, what is important is to give a nomen iuris adjusted to the truth of the conduct that is generally and systematically committed against the civilian population. A plausible solution would then be to comply with the obligation of legislative adequacy in matters of international law, in accordance with the international treaties and norms adopted and ratified by Colombia; this, without neglecting that the budgets accepted by the Constitutional Court, as regards imprescriptibly, are appropriate to avoid impunity over time. However, this does not translate into the prevalence of an explicit obligation to implement the instruments, since it would not be intended to undermine the national power and autonomy to decide domestic norms; what is sought is that through legislative adaptation, Colombia recognizes, in practice, the residual competence of the ICC, and expresses the will and the possibility, through its own legislation, to prosecute crimes against humanity with a capacity similar to that of the ICC, transferring any kind of argument or justification that is oriented to the subsumption or undervaluation of international, customary and conventional law, in order to ignore formulas of nonapplicability and avoidance of impunity.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Crímenes de lesa humanidad, Imprescriptibilidad, Adecuación legislativa, Subsunción, Impunidad, Crimes against humanity, Imprescriptibly, Legislative adequacy, Subsumption, Impunity
