Agreement With Farc

On 16 May 2014, a partial agreement was reached on another agenda item, illicit drugs. Developments in Havana, however, were overshadowed by campaigns for the legislative elections (9 March) and the two-track presidential elections (25 May and 15 June). Former President Álvaro Uribe, an opponent of the peace process, founded his own party, the Democratic Centre (Centro Democrático, CD), and in March led his party`s list for the Senate. The party`s list, led by Uribe, won more than 2 million votes and 20 seats and formed a strong opposition bloc in the new legislature, although parties supporting the peace process retained majorities in both houses of Congress. The peace process became one of the main themes of the presidential race, with the peace promise serving as the basis for President Santos` re-election campaign, while Uribes` candidate for the Democratic Centre, Óscar Iván Zuluaga, opposed the peace process. Zuluaga had said he would suspend peace talks until the FARC agreed to a permanent and verifiable unilateral ceasefire within 8 days, conditions deemed realistic impossible. [40] In addition, Zuluaga claimed that there was no armed conflict, but a “terrorist threat,” saying that issues such as land reform and illicit drugs could not be decided with the FARC, “the largest drug cartel in the world.” Instead, Zuluaga promised “peace without impunity” and said he was ready to reduce prison sentences for those who had committed crimes against humanity, but with a political ability limited to guerrillas, not commanders. [41] The final agreement was ratified by referendum on October 2, 2016. [82] She failed with 50.2% against her and 49.8% for, with a turnout of 37.4%. [83] [84] It should be noted that Colombians living in areas most affected by the conflict, including Colombians displaced abroad, voted in favour, while more voted against inland and in more remote urban areas. [85] However, Law 1 of 2016 will only be adopted after the ratification of the final agreement by the plebiscite on October 2, 2016 in The Referendum in Damages. Crimes not eligible for amnesty or pardon would be presented to the PEC, which would have jurisdiction over all those who have directly or indirectly participated in the armed conflict: combatants of illegal armed groups who have signed a final peace agreement with the State, State agents who have committed crimes in the conflict and third parties directly or indirectly involved in the conflict; without being a member of an armed group. The JEP would be responsible for undetermined funding or cooperation with paramilitary groups for those with “decisive participation in the most serious and representative crimes.”