Ms Mariela Kohon:

I will try to pick up as many points as I can. On the victims, the attacks on the JEP rarely come from victims. They are coming from people who have been implicated in things they do not want to be discovered or for political reasons. We have seen a lot of support for the transitional justice process from the victims. They are not just victims of the FARC. This process is for victims of everyone in the conflict. The purpose of this transitional justice process is sometimes misrepresented. After all the lessons from the Good Friday Agreement, it is the one area in which Colombia has perhaps advanced more in terms of legacy and truth, at least in agreement if not in practice. Internationally that process has been highly regarded, with its focus on restorative justice and truth rather than a punitive process. Some civil society organisations have made presentations to the system, including Afro-Colombians and indigenous groups, women, and relatives of victims of extrajudicial execution and killings by the army.

I agree that victims are supposed to be at the heart of this peace agreement. It is important that the process be defended.

Regarding the ELN, the talks have been suspended since the bombing of a police academy in January for which it claimed responsibility. The Colombian Government called off the talks. Civil society and defenders of the peace process are keen for them to resume and for some kind of peacefully negotiated resolution to be found with the ELN. Although the ELN is not as large as FARC was, it is a significant force and there needs to be a peaceful resolution to the process.

In the context of Venezuela, the number of migrants, particularly in the border region, is a source of difficulty. Last year, we took a delegation to Catatumbo, which borders Venezuela. It is something that one hears about. Defenders of the peace process do not necessarily agree with the Duque Administration's interventionist approach or any move towards any kind of conflict. The implication of that for the peace process would be difficult. There are concerns, but there is also support for issues to be resolved through negotiation.

In terms of the war on drugs and the coca crop issue, I would encourage the Colombian Government to implement what is in the agreement as a way of solving the situation. The agreement has a clear roadmap, including a public health focus in respect of users. It also has a focus on sustainable alternatives that empower peasant farmers to move beyond subsistence levels and do not damage the environment. There needs to be development of the countryside, but a lack of resources has been provided for that purpose under the national development plan. The Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial, PDETs, that were mentioned in the UN report are a welcome step, but there needs to be more investment in the countryside. The agreement had a progressive way of dealing with the drugs issue that was welcomed by many people who work on the issue in greater depth.

I agree that the Colombian Government is not homogenous. The Centro Democrático party houses different views. It is a challenging situation, particularly given the party's history of being so opposed to the peace agreement and then becoming responsible for implementing it. I will reiterate the fact that this is an agreement signed by a state, not by an administration. As such, the party has an obligation to implement it. The agreement needs to be protected.

Regarding the international community and what the committee could do, a visit would be incredibly important if that were possible. The committee should ensure its independence during the visit and meet all of the various institutions, civil society and the signatories to the agreement. In the context of the peace process, FARC is a signatory to the agreement. It is not just another political party now.

The EU trust fund and all of the other support that has been given have been important, but political support is almost more important than resources. The backing for the agreement and the diplomatic pressure that can be applied, be that through statements, letters or some other way, are important. The statements that have been made by the UN Security Council every three months defending the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, JEP, and its autonomy have been very significant. Some of the progress is down to that international shield. The UN verification mission is fundamental. Its mandate is due to be renewed in September, and its continuation would be important in light of the presence on the ground it provides. People feel like it is a shield. Anything that the committee can do to build the feeling of an international presence is important.