 Good morning, everyone. Sorry for the late start here. Welcome to the United States Institute of Peace. My name is Tonus Montes, and I'm the program specialist for the Columbia portfolio. And I'm delighted to welcome you to today's discussion. We are pleased to host our Columbia Peace Forum with our colleagues from the Woodrow Wilson Centers Latin America program and the Inter-American Dialogue. Thank you to Cindy Aronson, Catalina Casas, and Michael Camilleri for helping us with today's event. It is very much our pleasure to welcome this delegation on the occasion of the Columbian Senate's Peace Commission's visit to Washington, D.C. The three senators joining us are prominent leaders representing diverse views across Columbia's current political spectrum. We are pleased to welcome Senator Paloma Valencia from President Duque's Centro Democrático Party, Senator Roy Barreras from Ex-President Santos Partido de la U, and Senator Iván Cepeda from the Opposition Party Polo Democrático Alternativo. It is our pleasure that you have been able to join us here in D.C. for this morning amidst your very tight schedule. USIP established the Columbia Peace Forum in 2012 as the FARC peace process was beginning in Havana, Cuba. The forum sought to produce creative analysis of Columbia's internal armed conflict and discuss challenges to the peace process. The Columbia Peace Forum has served as a mechanism to inform policymakers and opinion leaders in both Columbia and the US. In a current Columbian context where consensus around peace has remained elusive, the Commission has become a unique setting for programmatic compromises and dialogue across diverse political perspectives and a discussion for prospects for peace and stability. Today's Columbia Peace Forum is being streamed live in Spanish, and you can follow the conversation virtually on Twitter by using hashtag Columbia Peace Forum. For those of you who require translation, there are headsets. Channel one is for English and channel four, Spanish. Please help me welcome to the stage Michael Camliieri, director of the Peter D. Bell Rule of Law Program at the Inter-American Dialogue. He is an international lawyer and former diplomat who served in the Obama administration from 2012 to 2017. And as the Western Hemisphere Advisor on the Secretary of State's Policy Planning Staff and as director of Indian Affairs at the National Security Council, please also join me in welcoming our moderator, Steve Hage, a senior expert on Columbia here at USIP and the Columbian Senate delegation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jonas. Morning, everyone. Buenos dias. Bienvenidos otra vez. They've asked me to speak in Spanish, so I'll comply with the orders. Es un honor, un placer. On behalf of the Inter-American Dialogue, it's a pleasure to co-host this forum with the US Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson Center. Thank you to USIP for hosting today. And I'd also like to acknowledge the valuable work that this institution has done over the years to promote peace in Columbia for a long time under the leadership of Jeannie Buvia, whom we recall fondly, and now under the leadership of Steve Hage, who will serve as moderator for today's discussion. Those who work with Latin America will have heard the expression, Brazil isn't for beginners. Well, whoever invented that phrase clearly had never visited Columbia. And the topic that brings us together today highlights that the peace accord between the Columbian government and the FARC was the result of a complex four year negotiation that culminated in a 300 page agreement. For its promoters, this accord represents the path to putting an end to armed conflict, armed conflict that has plagued Columbia for half a century and affected 9 million Columbians and represents the path to doing away with the injustice and the inequality that gave rise to that conflict. To those who oppose it, the peace accord is a betrayal of those victims. It makes generous concessions to a guerrilla group that sowed terror for decades. The peace process divided the Columbians almost 50-50. It resulted in a referendum where the NOS went out by 60,000 votes. Today, the accord has been implemented constitutionally. There are still many divisions. Today, President Ivan Duque, who is in charge of implementing the peace accord, was actually a leader of the no campaign. But despite that opposition, President Duque has not sought to continue to oppose it. Instead, he's looking for some minor changes. He's seeking to unify the country. And right now, the minor changes to the accord have not threatened its essence. Yet still, consensus is difficult to find. And there are many challenges. Two of every three Columbians has a negative view of the peace implementation process. Many of the former FARCs have abandoned the process. Hundreds of people have been killed. And few of those cases have been cleared up. Coca-cultivation is as high as ever. There are still many debates around the right course of justice for former FARC members and others involved in serious crimes. And the negotiations with the ELN remain suspended. And it's in this challenging context that the co-chairs of the Columbian Peace Commission join us today. They are from different political parties. And as you will see, their viewpoints are quite different as regards these different issues. So they do agree on some points. So with their disagreements, it is very important that they are here together, democratically discussing their differences and hopefully working towards that elusive consensus. So it is a great pleasure for us to be able to host them here in Washington and to hear from them firsthand more about what's going on with the process that is vital to Columbia and the region. And with that, I am pleased to yield the floor to today's moderator, Steve Hage, senior expert on Columbia here at the US Institute of Peace. Steve. Thank you, Michael, and thank you to all of you for attending this Columbia Peace Forum. Maria Antonia and I, who lead the Columbia program here at the USIP, it's a true honor to have you join us here, whether you're in the room with us or following us via our website from Columbia or elsewhere. Again, thank you to our partners, the Woodrow Wilson Center, and the Inter-American Dialogue. Since he took office in August, or it took office in August 2018, the new administration has sought strategies for promoting peace in the country, despite persistent polarization, President Ivan Duque has promised to forge national unity around the challenges of implementing the agreement with the FARC and as regards the future of negotiations with the ELN, including legislators from different parties. The Senate Peace Commission is a unique forum in the midst of this debate. The USIP is an independent but public institution. And as such, we felt it was important to organize this visit by the Senate Peace Commission with these three co-chairs, Paloma Valencia, Roy Barreras, and Ivan Cepeda. This delegation, during its visit, has had several meetings on the Hill with the Department of State and Civil Society. I'd like to commend these three individuals for the great professionalism they have shown throughout these meetings, despite their significant differences on different points. They know how to listen to one another and respond to one another with great patience and goodwill and good faith. And this sets an excellent example for all Colombians who seek less polarization and greater social cohesion. This exercise is ultimately an example of the democracy that lives in Colombia. This forum is meant to provide an opportunity for debate, the sharing of different perspectives regarding the challenges and opportunities around peace in Colombia. The goal is not to generate consensus here today, but to allow people to listen to each other so that the path towards consensus can be taken. It is a great honor and privilege to have this group here at the USIP in order to share with those who are here in the room or following us online. We look forward to hearing your perspectives. A warm welcome to these three prominent members of the Senate delegation who, again, have shown great professionalism over these days, these last few days. Each senator will speak for 10 minutes to highlight the views that they want to bring into the debate. As a moderator, I will then pose a number of questions, and then, ultimately, we will open the floor for our audience here to ask questions about the issues of greatest interest to them. We'll begin with Senator Paloma Valencia, who represents the government party, the Partido Centro Democrática. Paloma is an attorney. She has written articles for various newspapers, has provided analysis on the radio, and is founder of the website, Otrezquina. She's an important voice in the legislative agenda, and particularly as regards programs with a gender perspective. Paloma Valencia, you have the floor for 10 minutes. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you to the US Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Dialogue in the Willjure Wilson Center, and everyone who's accompanying us personally or digitally. The media have asked me, what are you doing there? And I've said, well, we're just going to share the debate that the Colombians have been very familiar with for the last few years and bring that to the international community that couldn't happen in the previous administration because those of us who represented the no vote never had the opportunity to express our views. There had to be a referendum for that to finally be heard. It was a very difficult campaign because there was a lot of government money for the yes vote, a lot of free publicity and the media for that stents. And amidst all that polarization and stigmatization of those who wanted to vote no, the no's still won out in a very historic referendum in the sense that it highlights democracy in Colombia because despite the government having the money and international support, citizens were able to vote no. Now, much has been said about that no vote, but in reality, it was a legitimate victory and a hard one victory because so many rules were changed to facilitate the yes vote. Now, why did we vote no? Not because we didn't want peace. All Colombians want peace, but because the hard question is how? How do you build peace? The theory of those who promoted the Havana Accord was that the basic social contract of our society had left people out. And by negotiating with them, you can create a new Colombia that includes them. But our impression is that part of what's happening with Colombia is that the process of institution building is a difficult one, one that's hit a lot of hurdles. And why? In my opinion, and the opinion of those of us who supported that no vote is that you have to be consistent over time. And the rule of law, the law has to be obligatory for all and over a consistent amount of time until everybody is convinced and understands that the law is the law of the land. If it's so hard to abide by a law, it's because it doesn't feel permanent yet. So it has to be in place long enough, and it has to be understood that there are consequences. So that culture of illegality is what has been impeding the building of strong institutions in Colombia. So for me, the big problem with the Havana negotiations was that it created the impression that it's OK to commit a whole score of crimes, negotiate with the state. There are no consequences for the crimes. And that sends the message to Colombian society that that's a legitimate way to gain power. And that's what we saw in the previous negotiations with M19 that now that group did comply with the accord. And in fact, some of these people have had great careers within our democratic system. But to guarantee that it won't happen again, the focus can't be just on individuals. It has to be the message you send to society as a whole. And we feel that there's been a structural flaw here. When there are no sanctions for crimes against humanity, it gives the impression that the crimes weren't that bad and everything can be legitimized politically afterwards. It sets a bad example. And if you don't build institutions and create that consistency over time, it's going to undermine long-term peace in Colombia. Our position, therefore, had to do with the fact that we felt that crimes against humanity had to be punished and not in any old way. It's not enough to do community service, go paint a school. A true punishment that fits the crime. That's to guarantee that this will not be repeated, to ensure that no other Colombian will choose that path. And the Havana Accords don't do that. There's discussion about the appropriate sanctions for FARC members that committed such crimes. And honestly, some of them are already in the Congress and there have been no reparations. They haven't given the truth. It sets a bad example. And that seems like a very bad thing to us for Colombia. It's very simple. Colombia has a huge problem with drug trafficking on top of all this. If we just had gorillas without the drug trafficking, then it may well have been a much easier problem to solve in the short term. But when you have the enormous income generated by drug trafficking, money that can finance any number of criminal organizations that really limits government control over its own territory, so that's the second big challenge. And the solution being proposed for Colombia's situation is, well, the state should govern throughout the territory, and that sounds very logical, and it sounds great. But we've never had a president that didn't already think of that. Of course, it seems obvious. The more important question is, why is it that Colombia hasn't been able to have the state control every part of the territory? That's the question. And again, it takes us back to institution building. And here I have two points. First, there is the nature of Colombia. Half the country is jungle, which creates a huge challenge, because if you have a group that's penetrating the jungle with its illegal crops, how are you going to monitor that when it's so remote? If you were to get rid of the jungle, that'd be no problem. But that's not going to happen in Amazon and Darien and the Pacific region. That those jungles, that rainforest, is part of our natural resource heritage and for the world. So we can't do away with it. So how do we solve our underlying problems, which is really institutional weakness? Because having institutions doesn't mean just opening an office somewhere. Institutions are much more than that. It's the sense that Colombians understand that the rules are for everyone, that citizens have the obligation to follow the rules no matter what and without the coercive power of the state. Because the Colombians will say, well, if there aren't any police to catch us, then maybe we can get away with it. So really what people need to internalize is that these rules represent the will of all Colombians. So I think it's naive to think that it's enough to sign an agreement with the FARC, and there will be great improvement in terms of violence in Colombia. That's not the case. Because as soon as the FARC leave an area, the state isn't going to be able to create the institutions that are necessary in that place. And so it opens a vacuum, and they can't prevent other groups from moving in with their thriving drug business. So here's what I want to say. The issue of lawfulness is that the motivation to follow, abide by the law, isn't as strong as the motivation to break the law with all the money they can make growing coca instead of another crop. So it's a dilemma that is seen across Colombia, and it cannot be forgotten. My time is running out, so I just wanted to wrap up saying the following. There aren't any enemies of peace in Colombia. All Colombia wants to live in peace. So the question is, how do you build that peace? One option is to negotiate or reconfigure the social compact, the social contract, and the sense of Rousseau. We can negotiate with everyone who feels left out until we've created a new state. Or, and this is what I think is right, we can be consistent and persistent about laws which should be enforced for everyone. There should be sanctions that are proportionate, that fit the crime so that all Colombians understand that that path should never be taken again and avoid these bad examples. And secondly, there have to be guarantees for Colombian armed forces. We aren't asking for impunity. We are not asking for jail time. Members of armed forces who committed crimes against humanity should spend at least five years in prison because no crime against humanity should go unpunished. It doesn't matter who committed it. But there have to be some guarantees in place. Why? Because there's been a presumption of guilt and the burden of proof has shifted. So it shouldn't be enough to just confess and go free. It's a perverse incentive that's being created because the failures of immunity that was provided have created issues. We, Colombia has always been a democracy with many problems but it's been a democracy and as such there have to be basic guarantees, the presumption of innocence, and we can't force people to confess in exchange for freedom. That's not a good formula. So those are the main points that I wanted to put forward to explain the stance of those people who voted no and have misgivings about the Havana Accords. But as our president has said, we have never asked to have the Accords torn apart. We want a national Accord. That Accord was negotiated by a government that represented half the country and the FARC but the other half of the country doesn't feel represented. It wasn't taken into account in the negotiations of that Accord but here we are. We continue to exist and we continue to want those amendments to the Accord so that we can have more than just an agreement with the FARC but to have Colombia that is at peace. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Senator Valencia. And together with Michael's introductory remarks, I think this gives us a good framework for the hour and 20 minutes that remain. Senator, you touched on some very core issues here having to do with the controversy, looking at the dilemma between the Peace Accord and how to build up the state, how to put an end to violence beyond just negotiations with a group that had taken up arms. This transition that everyone wants the Duque administration to undertake, move from illegality to legality, and the important fact that all Colombians support peace and are seeking to consensus on how to arrive at that. I would like to give the floor now to Senator Iván Cepeda. We'd like to hear his comments, his perspective on these same topics as well as others that he will add to our debate. Senator Cepeda represents the Polo Democrático Alternativo. This is an opposition party. He specialized in international humanitarian law and the Catholic University in Lyon, France. He's written essays and books on violence against members of the Unión Patriótica Party. He led the movement of victims of state crimes in 2003. He has been part of the group of Colombians for peace and was elected to Congress for the first time in 2010 as a representative of Bogota. He has been a strong proponent of the victims and land restitution law and has been deeply involved in the debate on political control over land and dispossession and ownership and in denouncing sexual violence against women. In recent years, he's played a very important role as a facilitator of processes not just with the FARC but also with the ILN and the Clan del Golfo. Thank you very much to the three institutions that have made this session possible. To the audience here, to my colleagues in the panel and to those following us over the internet, welcome. I'm here to talk about the peace process that has unfolded in recent years in Colombia. The peace accord that was signed in 2016 between the FARC and the Colombian government is a totally legitimate process and accord. It is so in terms of ethics and humanitarian aspects. It has been able to put an end to a bloodbath that has existed for several decades in Colombia that has affected and hurt many families in Colombia. And this has helped us to envision a country without violence, which was impossible just decades or even just years ago. This is a legitimate accord. It is one that is legal from a legal standpoint and a constitutional standpoint. It has passed all of the tests of constitutionality. It has been debated in all areas of Colombian society. And nowadays, there are several laws, several executive decrees, legislative actions that have given it legality internationally. The government of President Santos issued a unilateral declaration before the UN Security Council, which means this is internationally binding for the Colombian state. As far as implementing the accord is concerned, it is legitimate politically speaking. It's the accord that has been most highly debated in Colombia, most deliberated, article by article in the Congress. We've even discussed the very same law two and three times to ensure that it was adopted. The prior opposition and the current governing party have had all opportunities to express their opinions. And I think we're all very familiar with what those are. They are all respectable. Some may want to reach an agreement, but there are also differences. From my point of view, what you cannot do is question the legitimacy of the accord. It continues to be debated, and it will continue to be debated in coming years in Colombia. But what has to be acknowledged, as President Duque has so done, is that this is an accord that is firm and must be implemented. We're concerned that this affirmation of acknowledgment, there is no correlation between any public policy for its implementation. The Duque administration has questioned some of the, not just some aspects of the accord, but is trying to transform this agreement. You've seen many examples, just to give you one, the refusal to legislate on the 16 aspects for those areas that have been most highly affected by violence. And it must be completely implemented. Point number one of the accord, no significant efforts have been made for this to be implemented. I will not explain, I won't go into detail of what that contains. But point number two, item number two, the reform has not been implemented, despite the fact that there's a document coming from an independent mission proposing a democratic policy reform, nor have substantial efforts been made with relation to crop substitution. In September of last year, the UN Office for the Fight Against Crime and Drug Trafficking indicated that at least 30,000 hectares of coca had been eradicated through the use of crop substitution. At least 25,000 have, the substitution has been done by these Campesino families who were growing coca and they have fulfilled their promise. The promise they made to participate in the program. So this is possible. Through the institution, you can achieve outcomes and solutions, solutions to the problem of drug trafficking. President Duque's administration has shown interest in not allowing this to unfold and take normal course, especially in terms of the special jurisdiction for peace having to do with non-repetition and reparations. His administration has encouraged reforms that we believe are incompatible with the state's duty to provide truth and justice and reparations. There are why are certain areas excluded and the third parties that were responsible for crimes against humanity and the financing of illegal and drug trafficking groups in Colombia. Why have they excluded civilian agents of the Colombian state who have been involved in very serious crimes against humanity? So justice exists for some and for others, it doesn't. How can that be? We need clarification if these people are above the law and if they have no accountability vis-à-vis the victims. At the same time, the administration of President Duque has not shown any serious desire to implement the reincorporation project, as we've seen in different areas, to ensure that former combatants, 13,000 former combatants, are able to have a normal life after they've laid down their arms. In that context, looking at the suspension of dialogue with the ELN in Havana, this is something that we think can lead to a failure of this very significant effort that we've been undertaking for many years. It leads us to a number of questions. For example, one that will be debated in the Congress, why in the national development plan is the roadmap for the coming four years of what the state will be doing and investing in? Why does it not appear 0-1 from 2016, which is a legislative act, the responsibility that will include a chapter for peace in the national development plan? It's clear that that chapter is not there. They're trying to erase from the government's agenda the implementation of the accord. So we will be debating this very strongly in the coming months in Congress, because the national development plan, as it exists in its initial draft, is openly unconstitutional. If we are to adhere to the law, we have to first follow the Constitution. I wanted to indicate that the peace agreement and the peace accord are the solution, or one of the important solutions for the multi-dimensional crisis the country is experiencing. There is a structural justice problem in Colombia. I'm really struck by the fact that this special jurisdiction for peace is being attacked if we could resolve that through the current justice system. I'd like to recall that in Colombia, there's a scandal that's called the Toga Cartel. So these are judges who are selling judgments and rulings and have done so with the green light from members of Congress. There's been the Odebrecht scandal where the Attorney General of the nation has been involved. And then recently, in recent weeks, we've been discussing whether or not a new Attorney General should be appointed. There's a social crisis having to do with drug trafficking, rural poverty. So the question is, why not implement the crop substitution program? We've already seen specific outcomes. There is a deep humanitarian crisis having to do with the systematic murder of social leaders which has not been acknowledged as a very serious problem at the political level. And in fact, we've seen drug traffickers threaten their lives. Their policy is tied to the weakening of the country's institutions because of corruption. Each of these aspects, the justice crisis, the humanitarian crisis, the social crisis, and the political crisis, the peace accord has shown its ability to undo this and address some of the most severe aspects of the crisis. And the political world in recent years, we've seen an increase in voting in elections, parliamentary elections, and presidential elections. There was a popular consultation where 11,000 people stated that they were in opposition to corruption. This... So I would wrap up by saying the following. The possibility of building consensus in Colombia, and we are open to this. I am not sitting up here in this forum just to come to debate blindly some proposals and arguments. We have to build consensus based on the reality of the problems and the solutions that we have been developing. The peace process from the past years is one of the most significant achievements that the Colombian people have been able to build, even with those who oppose the process. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, stated this in the commemoration of two years after the signing of the accord, that this peace accord serves as inspiration to many of those in the world who are fighting against war and seeking to achieve stable and long-lasting peace. Thank you very much, Senator Sapeza. Thank you, Senator Sapeza, for adding to this dialogue as you stated. And this is a debate, it's a dialogue. Other important topics like the legitimacy of the accord with the FARC, from Havana, it has been transformed into laws and has saved the lives of many Colombians. The very broad debate surrounding that accord, despite some challenges that you yourself underscored, talking about transformation, not just in laws, but also in public policy, including these 16 special areas, and we should discuss this during the Q&A. And articles one and two of the Havana Accord, the implementation thereof, and some of the accomplishments achieved in crop substitution. You've talked about the special jurisdiction for peace, we should talk about the institution, some of the perspectives on its legitimacy, and some of its achievements. You've also spoken about reincorporation, which has been one of the priorities of this government. That is the reincorporation of many former FARC combatants. Also the suspension of negotiations with the ELN. This is a matter of great concern. And finally, all of the corruption scandals and the relationship to the problems with implementation of the accord. So thank you, Senator, for your comments. I would now like to give the floor to Senator Barredas, who represents the Partido de la U. He has been president of the Senate since 2011. He has headed this Congressional Peace Commission. Senator Barredas is from Valle del Cauca. He is a doctor. He spent 20 years working as a doctor before becoming a politician. He worked in medical anthropology and has been one of the members of Congress who has been most involved in the peace process. He was a negotiator in Havana in the most recent negotiation cycles with the ELN before they were suspended. He has written several books and what I've learned in these past days and his free time he works in is a comedian. We're all actors, all politicians are actors. Well, you can see him on YouTube and other areas. I'm sure he will share some of his perspectives with us. Welcome, Senator Roy Barredas. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of you for being in attendance at this forum. These forums provide us hope in terms of building peace and saving lives. Each of us could be somewhere else right now and I'm sure we could be going about our daily business but for different reasons we're here in the United States Institute of Peace. That means we have interest in peace and other human beings. Thank you to those who invited us. Steve, Marty, Antonia, Michael, thank you for your opening remarks where you talked and where you mentioned the inter-American dialogue and the Woodrow Wilson Institute. We're happy to be here. And the very nice introduction by Steve makes me recall that at the end of the day and political activity as we all know is one of action. We are all political actors and since the Greeks and this has meant two things. So we represent the demos that is our constituents in my case. I represent the party that has defended the position of former President Santos but we're also part of reality. There is representation of reality and that is why I'd like to thank our colleagues from the media, thanks to the media that have do disseminate the message, the representation of the message and it's something that survives in the ocean of social networks that does play its part in the conflicts because they are multipliers of emotions for good or for bad. They do that. They can promote hate and anger. So you look at some of the decisions of societies from the 21st century. We're working more with emotions than with reason than with facts than with data. Traditional media are making efforts to provide analyzed information. However, social networks are bulldozing those with emotions and this can create upheaval in all political systems in Europe, in Poland, in Sweden. The same has happened here in the United States and it's occurred in Columbia and the case of the referendum where many people came out to vote convinced that if they supported the peace process their children were going to turn into gays and this was one of the reasons that many people voted no. It was because of what was coming out in social networks. Social networks are kind of magical realism. It's like the law on pensions. This came as Senator Cabrales from the Centro Democrático saying that there's a law called Roy Barreras. He put my name on it and according to this we were going to take pensions away from pensioners so that we could pay the former guerrillas and they were saying, oh, this law, the Roy Barreras law is about to be passed which of course was untrue but this is not something exclusive to Columbia. Social networks have these tendencies and there's the confirmation bias. It happens to all of us. We receive messages from those who think the same way that we do and that reaffirms our conviction. We forget about the other half of the world that thinks differently and perhaps they're right. So you look at scenarios like this for us like this that are very useful. I wanted to refer to what Michael said who stated that the peace process divided Columbia into practically 50-50. Columbia has historically been divided. It has been for more than a century. There was a war that nobody won and we all lost in the 40s and the 50s. There were bloodbaths and nobody ever paid the price. And nobody ever paid the price. Nobody ever was held accountable those who were in the government. Nobody was held accountable for all the bloodshed in the country or the fact that many people were killed with machetes. I know that many people, their grandparents that in the 1950s or the 1960s had to flee from the violence in the rural regions. Now we're divided, but not violently. It's peaceful division. And that is a major accomplishment. We have been able to ensure that the oldest guerrilla group in Latin America laid down its arm. And now there's debate without weapons. What we saw just two years ago, the signing of a pact. I was one of the negotiators, the planet-potentiary negotiator on behalf of the government. We have to celebrate this two-year anniversary for all those people who are alive today living wherever they're living because of this. They would have been dead and buried if we had not signed the peace accord because there were so many thousand who died each year because of the FARC. And the 13,000 combatants who laid down their arms, they went back to their homes, back to their families. And they need all the support of the government, the current administration and coming administration so that they can socially reintegrate and say never again to violence. Michael, you also touched on the increase in coca-crops. And there's a serious argument looking in the post-conflict era. Drug trafficking existed before peace. Drug trafficking is a strange war. It's a foreign war. And we are involved in this. It's all about supply and demand. Drug trafficking exists here as well. A government that's just a few miles away from here, the government of Nixon, they started an anti-drug policy, as we all know, had geopolitical interests to try to create smear campaigns. But what is true is the history of prohibition here and put an end to alcohol mafias. There's nobody here who's right wing or left wing who believes that there should be the prohibition of whiskey, like existed in the 1920s. And alcohol is a drug that causes damage, more than marijuana, even more than coca. What coca, the cocaine that people sniff here in the streets here, or marijuana, the only people I know who have died after using marijuana are those who have died from laziness. What kills are mafias, so it's the prohibition. It's making them illegal. That's what causes the problems. You can't say that peace is what's behind drug trafficking. Drug trafficking is a terrible thing for Colombia. The clients, however, the customers are here. They're in Europe. And if we don't decriminalize drugs globally, then it's going to continue. It's not what's behind the peace, or peace is not behind it. There are measures, significant measures, useful for crop substitution with the participation of those who were previously involved in violence, so the former FARC guerrillas. So we disarmed these illegal groups and also tried to pull up the coca crops and also the anti-personnel mines that have killed people. There have been anti-personnel mine programs that have been dismantled in the post-accord process. Senator Valencia was stating that one of the most conspicuous voices from the Centro Democrático Party where there's a beautiful tradition that we were discussing yesterday, and I think it's important to note today, this tradition of a certain Colombian elite who have governed for nearly a century, and in her family, they did this, and they did it from an ideological perspective in a very clean and legitimate way. And so this gives historic legitimacy to defending a cause. But we have another way of looking at Colombia. If you look at land and one of Steve's comments about these different 16 aspects of the peace accord that have been denied by the Centro Democrático, Colombia showed that violence worsens when the state is not present in the territory. In the 200 years this has existed, the Colombian state has never been able to be present throughout the state. And now the peace accord gives legitimacy to the government to occupy this and include the voices of the victims in the 16 areas that have been most highly affected by violence. So you can't hear from the victimizers and not the victims. So this has been a historical claim, which is the outcome of the peace accord, and the minimum claims that we have been hoping for. I should also say, and you notice there are opposing views here between Senator Paloma and Zepeda and myself, but they're both legitimate and peaceful and democratic positions, absolutely. But in the world and in Colombia, there is a crisis of liberal democracy where the two poles are the most attractive because they're the most exciting. That's what creates fear or anger or hatred or just hope or utopian dreams. In the center it's boring. It's boring even though it's non-polarized, but there's no emotion there. So that's why you have the crisis that we have or we have the two extremes. Either we have to defend the status quo or everything's in crisis and we have to change everything. That's one more crisis in Colombia. That's the long list. Now we have a new government with a young president, Ivan Duque from Paloma's party. He's intelligent, well-educated, capable. And in my view, his hands are clean and it's a legitimate government. And those of us who have opposed him for years, we recognize that. We agree this is a democratic process with alternating powers, which actually goes against what Paloma said where she said that half the people have never been heard. That's not true, this is the most peaceful election in Colombia and where parties alternate in power, that is what's legitimate and that's why I say that Ivan Duque has that, enjoys that legitimacy. Now he is inheriting a government and a country with international support and needs that support. It needs the United States support in a region that's still stable, but there are threats to that geopolitical stability. So it's a key partnership and President Duque has that advantage of having that international support and international support for the peace process. In addition to legitimacy and support, there are strong economic interests. Economic interest in seeing Colombia do well because there's already a lot of crisis for the US regarding oil or with China. And so investors see Colombia as a good place to invest now. So there's great opportunity for President Duque to position Colombia favorably, but those opportunities could disappear if the focus stops being forward-looking and turns back to pass. When peace is betrayed that there is the problem, you cannot abandon it. It's a form of treason and you'd have this perverse miracle of resuscitating your enemy when you win an election based on fear or on the existence of an enemy which has been an approach used many times. We see it all across history, including in Germany. Well, that creates a problem. In order to remain in power, you need to keep having an enemy and sometimes you have to reinvent that enemy. We've seen that in the past. Now we disarmed our enemy which was the FARC. So now there is the temptation in certain sectors on the right to resurrect an enemy and resurrecting that enemy could be ELN, which is the smaller gorilla that could end up growing into a larger enemy that could jeopardize the peace. And so really you would just replace the FARC with a different gorilla group. And that would be sad. We hear sometimes, oh, peace wasn't real, peace is a farce, and that would justify the confrontational rhetoric. Now we've been through this for 54 years now and it has left a trail of eight million victims. This temptation is easy to fall into and there's a temptation. And we see the example of our neighbor with a dictator to take these confrontational stances with regard to the border and it's easy to create that enemy. And again, the right could use this and say, oh, look, here's our enemy to these. So I really hope that we don't fall into that temptation as well. All of those of us who wish for a strong future for Columbia, I will support government in taking advantage of the opportunities and to do so we have to implement the peace accords. Just close the chapter on hatred and on the enemy and stop talking about yes votes and no votes and just talk about peace, the time of peace. There's no point in going back to this yes, no argument. It's not in the interest of Colombians. We believe that there are elements, there are things that are not Duque's responsibility. They are the responsibility of the forces that would see us turn back to the past. My colleague and friend Ivan Cipeda said that the ruling government's party has indicated possibly turning back on some aspects of the accord in the past. There were pressure to exclude third parties from the special justice, special jurisdiction for peace. At the international level, there's support for this special jurisdiction for peace. But here, it's where the victims lose because they do not benefit from there being so much silence around what has happened. So there is something that needs to be done there so that all people can turn to the hip. There are thousands of military personnel, including General Mario Montoya, that are now under the jurisdiction of the hip because they know that the guarantees and protections are in place and that they will have their freedom in exchange for truth and respect for the victims in this transitional peace system that works for all. It's unbiased and again enjoys full legitimacy. So in my last 10 seconds, I will use to say that I am hopeful that things will go very well for Colombia over the next three and a half years. My party believes that it is certainly possible to support young Ivan Duque with the condition that we mustn't turn our backs on peace. That peace must be pursued and as must be dialogue with the ELN. Thank you, Senator Barreras. This is very, very interesting. You bring that doctor's perspective and the cultural perspective, the importance of emotions and how they work in the social media. You also remind us of the misunderstandings that there have been around the contents of the peace and also the historical conflicts, the violent history of Colombia, the importance of the FARC's laying down their arms. You highlighted the relationship between drug trafficking and political battles. Highlighted the issue of the electoral districts, the importance of victims and victimizers both being involved in the Congress and that different viewpoints can be legitimate and respectful and democratic. You warned us of the usefulness of hatred and fear and having an enemy, highlighting the example of Venezuela and you also highlighted the importance of the FARC that third parties were not included in the FARC. So thank you to the three members of this delegation from the Senate Peace Commission for their introductory remarks. So now I'd like to start with questions. My first question actually is what gave rise to the idea of inviting you. It was a photo that was seen across the country about five, six weeks ago of a historical meeting of important figures from opposing factions in the country where they were discussing the future of the JEP. Senator Valencia had a bill where there would be a special court for former military members and there was a discussion with other members to just add 14 more justices to the JEP. So could you share with us what was that experience like what motivated your participation in this dialogue around the future of the JEP and though the bill doesn't seem to have a future, what could you draw as lessons learned from the dialogue amongst the different parties as regards peace and what does the future hold on topics, not just the JEP, but similar topics. So let's begin with Senator Valencia. Oh, or rather first, I'm sorry, we'll flip the order and have Senator Sepeta speak first. Well, we look favorably upon political dialogue, the experience of the peace commission shows us this, that we need a pluralist dialogue, that's how you arrive at an agreement. And in fact, I don't say this as an act of narcissism, but just to illustrate yesterday on the International Day of Human Rights, the Senate and Chamber of Peace Commission was awarded a prize in Bogota by the embassies of France and Germany, the Antonio Narimio Prize. And we interpret that, we see that as an encouragement for political dialogue. And that dialogue from my perspective and the perspective of the party I represent has to be conducted in an open manner, but with certain red lines as regards conduct, we would not accept any agreement that would fail to recognize the peace accords. The essence of the accord must be respected. The spirit in which the accord was signed and that's why we did not sign the agreement that came out of the meeting that Steve mentioned, the Polo Democratico did not sign to introduce new justices and the special jurisdiction for peace. And we are also not in agreement with dialogues where the agenda is set by just one participant. Why does a dialogue just have to be about the hype? Why can't we talk about how to implement agrarian reform? Why don't we talk about a national agrarian agreement to provide three million hectares of land to the Camposinos as promised by the accords? I'll tell you one thing, if the extreme positions in our country are about asking for three million hectares and accepting the peace accord, I mean, it's really just a matter of complying with the 1991 constitution, which actually provides for that. And it would provide for the presence of the state in 170 municipalities with schools, roads. These are basic, we're talking about a basic limeral reform. This isn't anything extreme and I don't mean to raise controversy here, but it's, we're not talking about a Castro or Chavez style reform, it's actually something provided for in the 1991 constitution. So we're ready, we are ready to discuss actions in that regard, it would be a way to revitalize democracy, in fact, because I do see democracy being in crisis. Thank you, Senator Sipedas and Senator Barrettas. Well, asking for the claims of the peasants of Colombia to be answered is not extreme. I agree, we need to pay that historic debt, but the extremes tend to pose everything as a catastrophe, a special time of elections. As a doctor, I can say two things, you have high blood pressure, you have diabetes, you are at risk of a heart attack because you don't exercise and that can be true, but I can also say you're here, you're alive, you were able to come up the stairs, if you lose eight, 10 pounds, you could live to be 90 and both of those things can be true. So it depends on how you want to approach society and what you want to say and what kinds of emotions you are trying to... You can tell I don't usually need a microphone, so I'm not accustomed to it. Thank you for that adjustment. So if you're trying to move the masses, this is true across the world, it's always better to use the language of crisis. Oh, it's a terrible enemy, the FARC they want to destroy us and the peace agreement is terrible and tragic because it brings impunity and we're just going to have this history repeat itself and bad examples are most often said at home, right? So many have behaved that way in the past, but I say let's focus on the good. People who had taken up arms have laid them down to have dialogue and to... It doesn't have to be a crisis. You can't say everything's a failure and a crisis and we're the alternative. What we say quietly is let's together build this pact for unity so that everything and everyone has a good future. Thank you. Now we'll have our medical debate and a separate discussion. Now what I would say is the following. You have to understand something. Those who voted no believe that there are errors being made that are going to undermine peace in Columbia for a long time. So we can't say that Colombians should have the final say and then disregard what half of them say and then have nothing happen. You can't say that it's legitimate if it's not especially when the opposition didn't even have the right to put forward proposals and defend them. There was an unconstitutional process that said it was constitutional because Colombians went to vote in the referendum but we voted no. And still they move forward with an unconstitutional move. So in the Ivana Accord, what do we have to just submit to what you say? We won the referendum, we won the presidency but democracy doesn't count. I think there's an underlying issue here. If we're democratic then we must respect democracy. Elections are one for purposes of decision making and those decisions are limited to what the democratic system decides and democracy did not vote for that accord. Now I don't want to enter in that debate because those who voted yes are really losing. They're saying that there would be no impunity. They said they wouldn't give them all sorts of benefits and that there wouldn't be a substitution of the justice system but look at what's happened. Those who voted no won and yet the door is closed on them. We wanted to negotiate, Steve Senators, we wanted a new renegotiation, a new kind of agreement but the attitude was that it was just the Christians that had the problem with this, that it was just that ideological opposition. But one of the leaders of that no movement is president today. So let's not take decisions lightly. Senator Barreras will know that I had the votes for those special magistrates but now it was Velasco who changed his mind and we could have moved forward with those new courts and Sonys would have to forgive me because the others went over their 10 minutes and I did not so I'm going to talk a little bit now and some things are worth discussing. We tried to build an agreement on the basis that it should be possible to have a national agreement. Having a national agreement means that those who said no, that recognizes that we exist and takes into account our point of view. We voted no and we also voted for President Duque and that's the democratic reality that the other senators must understand otherwise it's very difficult because yeah, we can renegotiate anything except the accord. What's the point of that? Senators Sipeda, I've said before we have no problem with investments in 170 municipalities, that's great, the government never said they wouldn't do that, nobody's opposed but that doesn't mean that that's the only thing that our government can do because then I'd say what is democracy for if the only platform we were allowed to implement is the Havana accord then why bother electing a president? We have political priorities that we should be allowed to pursue and we will. On point one of the accord, we're working on that, you know that perfectly well but three million hectares aren't just there for the taking, they're not easy to get. One of the proposals in Havana, one that I absolutely disagree with and I always will disagree with is that forest reserves could be turned into farms, I am absolutely opposed to that, categorically forest reserves should not be cut down to become farms, those forest reserves should remain as such. We're going to open up roads throughout the Amazon region, no I don't believe that, I believe we need to protect the rainforest and it's there, I'll show it to you if you want. I'll take out a copy and show it to you. There are the issues, so there's the forest reserve issue, there's the issue of opening up roads into remote areas which I think would be a terrible, terrible historical error, we can't destroy the rainforest so those are many issues that we could discuss. Seats for the victims, seats in Congress yes for the victims yes but not for the territories that should be person based and not land based, all the victims registered and the victims registered should be able to vote and elect victims representatives, that's one thing yes but another thing is to mark these districts where the FARC live and give them special electoral districts no. Seats for victims yes, seats for armed groups and drug trafficking areas no, special, special jurisdiction for the peace yes, now they say they want to impose it for all so I ask, if they were going to change your justice system overnight to a different system to judge you, just a theoretical thing, do you think that there should be a constitutional convention called for that, don't you think that everyone should be involved or do the FARC and the government get to change the entire justice system without consulting the rest of the Colombian population? I don't think that that's right, I don't think you can change the justice system without consulting the Colombians and those Colombians that were consulted on the whole said no so you can't impose that on us nor can you impose on us a procedure wherein the FARC and the government elect international groups, I'm sure they're great but have them come and choose our judges as though Colombia didn't have a democracy and ability to choose our own so we're being treated as though the FARC and the Colombia were two different parties to the conflict and it's not true, the FARC are not representative, they will never represent Colombians, you see the results of the elections and how they affected the FARC, they lost votes, they don't represent anybody, they aren't popular and for good reason, no other point, what was done about drug trafficking after the accord's nothing, where are the confessions, where are the routes, where are the crops? We didn't have the FARC turned over to us and then that's why we now have ELN cartels and the Mexican cartels doing a brisk business in Colombia, another place where the Havana Accords failed, another, what they did is they failed to address a problem that is continuing to grow over control, we have 200 million hectares of cocaine, of coca crops and the areas where the illicit crops are, the homicide rate has risen 33%, their social leaders are being killed, extortion is on the ride, thank you Senator Valencia, as you see this is where I'm going to disappear as a moderator and I will yield the floor because many of the issues mentioned by Senator Valencia are issues that I would have liked to ask questions about in general, about those special seats, the possibilities of finding an agreement for representation of victims based on the position of the Centro Democrático and I'm sure there are other, I'm sure you would like to be able to provide a rebuttal so let's start with Senator Barrera. Thank you very much, I would like to say on behalf of all but at least on my behalf, I think you see that we have to leave very quickly because we have a flight at 1.30 so we have to leave running at 11 a.m. so I ask for your forgiveness for that but those of us who are involved in the government and international affairs, we are engaged in these major debates that have to do with global politics, multilateralism. Senator Valencia is discarding this idea of engaging with international institutions, the United Nations which is no small fry in all of this, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights but in the world there are trends to say that multilateralism is something that needs to come to an end. Le Pen, Marion Le Pen and in Italy they say that you have to put an end to the European Union and Trump who is no friend of multilateralism so very interesting, the world's global and we have to deal with global problems, climate change, migration crisis and the entire crisis or that we all close in on ourselves as individual nations but I also heard from Senator Valencia looking at the history of the conflict in Columbia they're saying, okay seats for the victims but not for the former combatants, there's not a single historian who would not acknowledge that in the history of conflict there has been exclusion because of expropriation of land and the only way to create peace is to have territorial peace which is responding to the claims of the citizens who were also victims and they suffered in the massacres and the crimes committed in their territory so the peace has to have a territorial aspect to it, a land aspect. There's also an interesting debate on referendums as part of the democratic process. One of the major problems in democracy was with the creation of social networks and the internet which are a marvel literally speaking and motions have taken the place of logical decision and then you have the perverse twin of this which is the matter of referendum based democracy so Paloma is stating that we have to once again ask people for a constitutional convention. This was not something that came out of the people but about 55 guys who are in a room who came up with the constitution but what debate, is it a good idea to ask people in this sacrosanct dogma of the universal vote which is something that can be contravened democracy so look at the case of Brexit, did Brexit win? Did the no win? Nobody knows what to do with Brexit. They don't know what to do with the no vote because it seems that referendum based democracy will lead to emotional outcomes. President Santos and Nobel Prize Laureate did not want to change the constitution to sign the accords. Could have done this, has been done all over. In Colombia there was a peace accord with the guerrilla groups and no referendum had been given and yet they didn't decide. So the Colombians were not asked if they were in favor of this. Peace process with the M19, there was no jeep there in that case but President Santos decided to ask the Colombians. This was an excessive democracy and it ran the risk that happened in the case of Brexit. Despite this, and I'll wrap up with this Steve, this peace accord has not been, not supported by half of the Colombia but in the case I would say this with the triumph of the half percent, six and a half million, yeah. But for that reason we had to change the accords and come up with another accord with 298 different amendments to it and that was one that was ratified by the representatives of 15 million Colombians, that is the Congress. So you can't claim that there's no democracy here and there was no referendum asking Colombians to say no to the disarming of the FARC and so many others. You have the UN Security Council unanimously support the verification mission of the United Nations that oversaw the disarming of the FARC and looked at the constitution and the law. This is something that had never happened in any other peace process in the world. Thank you, Senator Cepeda, please be brief. Well, the discussion is not closed because we continue in this debate. This is what democracy is all about. We have the legitimate right to engage in debate. The peace accord is governed by a series of laws and constitutional amendments. It's true you could ignore the law and ignore institutions, but they are there nonetheless. There was a judgment issued by the constitutional court, which is 699 from December 13th, 2016, that clearly established, should the know when the referendum, the president still has the authority and secondly, one entity that has authority and democratic representation can uphold this. So this is not illegal. We won in the Congress because we had the majority in Congress to support the ratification as you won in the presidential elections. You are triumphed in the presidential elections as valid as ours in the Congress to ratify the accord. That's what democracy is all about and this is something the constitutional court has recognized. The accord is legitimate. It has constitutional authority. Secondly, in terms of these 16 special electoral districts for the victims, the FARC controlled those territories but then they say, well, they obtain very few votes and represent no, they either control the territory or they are weak political reality or perhaps in those areas of the country, they don't want different representation that would exist today. That's what's happening because if the argument is in those areas, you have the presence of illegally armed groups and drug trafficking, we wouldn't be able to have elections in any part of the country if that's the threshold. Colombia is the second ranked CD in Medellin in the heart of this and you have the oficina de invigada which is a drug trafficking cartel. We have to be honest about that. So drug trafficking is an issue that has to be discussed very seriously. You can't say, okay, based on the peace accords, we're allowing them to take control. No, the past 40 years, Colombia is a country that has been infiltrated by drug trafficking in all of its corners and in the institutions and I may seem like a nihilist in saying this but drug trafficking is an issue that has devoured the institutions in the country and the solution is not an eradication or inspection of crop substitution. It has economic, social roots and they're very serious and is the source of many of the problems that we're discussing here. Thank you, Senator Cepeda. Can I please answer? No, what we're going to do, we'll include your response in some of the responses to the questions from the audience. We'd like to have around of three questions. I would please ask you to be concise and brief. We only have about 10 or 15 minutes. I and I apologize for the delay and the lack of time. Well, let's begin over here and I would like to remind you, please be very specific in your questions and address them to all three senators and not just one. Thank you to all three of you. My question is what to do with illicit crops? Thank you. Thank you for that question. Thank you. I'll be specific. Tenemos un estado corrupto para meditar. Do we have a weak state or is it a corrupt state? So I would ask, I would ask you what the real issue is. Thank you and good morning. I literally came to greet the three of you. You probably never see the three of you together in general and I have been exiled from the country for 26 years. Victims, why didn't you include those of us who are now living outside of Columbia? You had the territories within the country, but those of us who had to flee and I was a member of the Constitutional Convention 1991, we were not included. Thank you. Why don't we take one last question? Okay, well, why don't we begin with these three? So the first question about crop substitution and the other question on what the core problem is in Columbia and then the participation of victims who are now living abroad. Let's begin with, well, I just have three quick sentences to respond. So I'm putting my skin in the game here because I have to leave and I know that you'll be in good hands with the resident. We have a very fragile state. It's not just that it's corrupt. It's very fragile and we have to strengthen it. We have to deal with drug trafficking because this is an overall problem and it's something that needs to be addressed globally. Legitimate crops, what do we do? What is the path to solving this? We have to decriminalize the drugs and in terms of the victims living abroad, I completely agree. There are about four million Colombians who are living abroad and they should have more representation. They have one single seat and in their condition of victims. I tried to be very concise and I am so sorry. I have to leave. I have a taxi that's been waiting for me for several minutes now. Okay, just two more minutes and I think that you'll be able to get out on time. Thank you very much. Are you gonna allow me to speak now? Of course, of course. No, I know I'm gonna have to run out of the room. Hey, they're traveling on the same flight. He's not gonna be able to escape her. Senator Cepeda? No, no, no. Why don't we let the senator make her comments and then I'll make my comments thereafter. I wanted to say the following. First, I completely agree with respect to the victims where we have the 16 new electoral districts. That's only 30% of the victims. If we want representation of the victims, you can't say these are the further victims but it's only 30% of those who are victims and live in those territories. That's why we're saying that everyone who's a victim in Colombia should be able to vote and vote for those seats for the victims with candidates who themselves were victims. And I even think we should include members of the military as candidates who were also victims of crimes against humanity. They should be included because the members of the government, those who are part of the government cannot register as victims. So even though they could be killed by antipersonal minds or they could be murdered, they are not allowed to run as candidates. So that's in response to one question. The second question, what is the core problem? I think there is a lack of institutional consolidation for thousands of reasons. But if you were to ask me, I think it's because Colombians in our heart don't have the commitment to following the law and I would like to respond to Senator Sapella. We never wanted to ignore the accord. That's precisely why we're here. One mechanism would have said, no, no, and let's leave it at that. And the government of President Duque is committed to legality as is our party. That's why we've tried to reach agreements and consensus with you. But we are being placed in a very difficult situation. So they say, no, it's not enough to win the referendum, the no, or the president, because they say everything is protected. So the only alternative is to govern. No, no, you have to understand that there are different democratic realities. You can't just ignore half the country and you have to understand that if we are going to be able to come to agreement, I very much respect you, but as long as you lack the conviction that a national accord, a national accord, not one, between half the country and the park is what Colombia needs, otherwise we cannot move forward and create a new state. Senator Sapella, we respect the law. What we have not sought anything outside of legal means. In terms of the HEP, we did this using legal procedures. When we present a draft bill for special jurisdiction, we did it based on the law. And so be very careful. We are respecting the law and we would never seek to think we're above the law or disobey the law. There is a matter that I think is very important and I think we're forgetting here. The constitutional court has stated there certain limitations where Congress can amend the Constitution. There are those who say that the core pillars have to do if there's no consultation, so justice among others. So all of this court to save the HEP took out third parties and why? Because otherwise they would have had to say that they were undermining one of the main clauses of the Constitution and you would need a constitutional assembly to be able to do that. And therefore we think the court was right. It took an intermediate stance looking at the members of the conflict, the work and the armed forces. But I don't think anywhere in the world, maybe in the Congo and some of the things that I've read there and you may know more about this than I do and correct me if I'm wrong. There are five people who were not elected and most of you would not know their names. Three of them are foreigners. They came to appoint the judges in a country. That is something very atypical and very anti-democratic and we continue to insist on this. As you will recall, Senator Sapeza, there are procedures for the HEP because the Centro Democrática voted in favor of it, but we would invite you to a dialogue to come up with agreements without those the National Court does not exist. Thank you, Senator Sapeza, just very quickly. And the matter of illicit crops, yes, yes. I defend this concept that Colombia has a major democratic and institutional crisis. This is structural. It is not anything new and there is a serious crisis when it comes to social equity, something that is clearly exemplified and the fact that every year we rank either second or third among countries with the largest social inequality on the planet. These are objective criteria. So you can't stick your head in the sand on this. We have to make sure that Colombia becomes an equitable and democratic society and this is what is at the heart of the discussion. And secondly, I think the statement made here in this meeting by Senator Valencia stating that she acknowledges the accord and that it's legal. This is a principle that can truly be the foundation for a serious discussion. But one thing is a statement and then we know what the reality is. President Duque yesterday in an event in Cartagena with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights started to tell the judges of the Kheb how they have to issue their judgments and President Duque was saying it has to be like this and this and this and Colombia, we have the separation of powers. A president cannot tell judges how they have to do their jobs nor it can't be the justices of the Supreme Court or any judge, especially in the Kheb. So we're trying to defend the legality and the president has to adhere to the Constitution and his role is very clearly defined in that same Constitution. Then we have to look at the Kheb, the special jurisdiction for peace with its relationship to third parties and civil agents in the armed conflict. Of course they're included. We have adopted the Rome Statute which commits us to fight crimes against humanity, eradicate those and to have effective punishment for those who have committed them. This does not just apply to the former combatants or those who engage in military actions. Of course, civilians who made decisions in the Colombian state should also be brought to justice no matter what position they have. The Rome Statute is very clear and sane that there is no area where in perpetrators of human, crimes against humanity should be exempt from prosecution. This is something that's very clear that the UN Office for the Fight Against Drugs and Crime in Colombia. 30,000 hectares have been eradicated in the past year in Colombia. And through crop substitution, 25,000 were done directly by families who are part of the crop substitution program. This is an outcome that I think should be food for thought for us. Thank you very much, Senator Sepeda. I wanted to commend the three of you, co-chairs of the Peace Commission in the Colombian Senate. I would like to thank you for your comments, for your observations, for this spirit of open dialogue amongst different parties and diverging positions. I wish you a safe trip back to Colombia. And please don't forget these dialogues. I wish you the best as you seek agreed solutions for all Colombians. I want to thank you for joining us here at USIP. It was a pleasure to have you here and to spend the past 36 hours with you. Thank you very much to the audience.