Colombia’s Peace Tribunal Shows Weak Accountability as FARC Kidnapping Victims Rarely Challenge Lenient Sentences

After seven years investigating thousands of kidnappings by the FARC guerrillas, Colombia’s Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP) delivered what it calls “restorative” sentences. Yet, out of more than 4,300 officially recognized victims in these cases, only eight have appealed these lenient punishments—none involving jail time. What does this say about accountability in post-conflict Colombia?

Are Restorative Sentences Enough When National Sovereignty Is at Stake?

The JEP’s approach focuses on symbolic and non-custodial penalties for crimes labeled as war crimes and crimes against humanity. For example, seven former FARC leaders received sentences limiting their rights for eight years instead of prison terms—a measure justified under the controversial peace accord negotiated in Havana.

But many Colombians ask: how can justice be served when brutal kidnappers avoid prison? The JEP president, Alejandro Ramelli, concedes some victims question why perpetrators are not incarcerated but insists dissatisfaction is low. However, the very leniency reflects a troubling prioritization of political expediency over genuine national justice—undermining the rule of law and emboldening those who threaten state sovereignty.

Victims’ Silence or Systemic Intimidation?

Only eight appeals from thousands of affected victims may seem like acceptance. But is it true consent or a symptom of fear and disillusionment? The system’s reliance on “justice restorative” measures—such as environmental projects or public works in affected regions—cannot substitute for rightful punishment where grave human rights violations occurred.

This creates a dangerous precedent not only for Colombia but also for America’s southern border security interests. If violent groups face minimal consequences abroad due to globalist-driven peace deals that dilute accountability, what message does this send to transnational criminal networks threatening U.S. borders?

The case concerning extrajudicial killings by Colombian military personnel—the so-called “false positives” scandal—shows similarly minimal victim appeals (only one), with punished officers also avoiding jail through alternative sentences. This signals systemic impunity embedded within institutions meant to uphold justice.

International accolades from organizations like the OECD praise the JEP’s innovative “restorative” model. Yet we must critically ask whether rewarding such frameworks inadvertently weakens sovereign judicial authority by sidelining punitive enforcement that protects citizens.

Is America prepared to watch globalist-backed international courts normalize lenient treatment of serious crimes while our own national security struggles? True justice means safeguarding freedom through accountability—not merely symbolic reparations subsidized by private sector funds or foreign cooperation.

As Colombia experiments with peace compromises that may sacrifice effective prosecution for political goals, Washington should remain vigilant about how such policies influence hemispheric stability and respect for law.