Colombia

Cluster Munition Ban Policy

Last updated: 11 August 2015

Five-Year Review: Signatory Colombia completed its domestic ratification process for the convention in 2014, but has not deposited the ratification instrument. Colombia has participated in all of the convention’s meetings and has condemned new use of cluster munitions, including in South Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine.

Colombia never produced cluster munitions, but it imported and used them. Colombia completed the destruction of a stockpile of 72 cluster munitions and 10,832 submunitions in November 2009. It is not retaining any cluster munitions for training or research.

Policy

The Republic of Colombia signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 3 December 2008.

Colombia’s ratification legislation incorporates the Convention on Cluster Munitions into domestic law, but separate implementation legislation is also planned. Law 1604 approving ratification of the convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted on 12 December 2012.[1] In 2013, it underwent a Constitutional Court review to ensure its compliance with the Constitution of Colombia.

While Colombia completed the legislative approval process for its ratification of the convention on Cluster Munitions in 2014, it had not deposited the instrument of ratification as of 26 August 2015. During a 10 August 2015 meeting with CMC representatives, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos committed to ensure that Colombia completes its ratification by the First Review Conference.[2] In a May 2015 letter, a representative of Colombia’s Ministry of External Relations explained that further stakeholder consultations are being conducted due to the convention’s importance in the field of disarmament.[3] In September 2014, Colombia committed to “continue making progress on ratification” and also stated it is “advancing consultations to ratify and to update national laws to be in compliance.” It listed elements “affecting” the ratification process, namely the 2014 presidential elections, the situation of armed conflict in the country, and the need to designate mechanisms to comply with the convention’s obligations.[4]

In March 2015, the Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines (Campaña Colombiana Contra Minas, CCCM) again called on the government to complete ratification.[5] In April and May 2015, CMC members in more than two-dozen countries responded to global call aimed at encouraging Colombia to ratify the convention before the First Review Conference takes place in September 2015.[6]

Colombia has provided regular updates on its ratification process.[7] Previously, in April 2014, a government representative said that “inter-ministerial consultations” were taking place on the convention.[8]

Colombia participated in several meetings of the Oslo Process that produced the convention and said that its decision to join stemmed from its concern about the “humanitarian impact” of cluster munitions.[9]

Colombia has continued to actively engage in the work of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It has participated in every Meeting of States Parties of the convention, including the Fifth Meeting of States Parties in San José, Costa Rica in September 2014, where it gave an update on ratification.[10] Colombia has attended every intersessional meeting of the convention in Geneva, including in June 2015. It participated in a regional workshop on cluster munitions in Santiago, Chile in December 2013.

In a September 2014 statement, Colombia “deplored” the new use of cluster munitions in South Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine and stated, “we call for this to stop.”[11] Colombia has voted in favor of UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions condemning the use of cluster munitions in Syria, including Resolution 69/189 on 18 December 2014, which expressed “outrage” at the continued use.[12]

Colombia is a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty. It is also party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons.

Interpretive issues

Colombia provided its views on certain important issues related to interpretation and implementation of the convention in a March 2010 response to a Monitor questionnaire.[13] The government “absolutely rejects and prohibits any manner of transfer or storage of foreign cluster bombs in Colombian territory” as well as “military operations with states not party to the convention in which they carry out exercises or actions prohibited by the Convention.” It also prohibits investment in production of cluster munitions. In addition, “Colombia considers that the countries that are still not a part of this convention can take steps toward honoring the spirit of the convention.” Colombia reaffirmed its position on all these interpretive issues in a May 2011 response to the Monitor.[14]

Production and transfer

In a May 2011 letter to the Monitor, Colombia affirmed that it has never produced cluster munitions.[15] In the past, it imported cluster munitions from Chile, Israel, and the United States (US). In 2010, Colombia stated that it has not transferred cluster munition “to a third state.”[16]

In 2012, Chile’s Ministry of National Defense provided the Monitor with a document detailing the export of a total of 191 cluster bombs to Colombia in 1994 (55 250kg cluster bombs, four air-dropped 250kg cluster bombs, and one fin stabilizer for a CB-250kg cluster bomb) and in 1997 (132 250kg cluster bombs).[17]

Past use

In May 2009, Colombia’s Minister of Defense Juan Manuel Santos acknowledged that the Colombian Armed Forces have used cluster munitions in the past “to destroy clandestine airstrips and camps held by illegal armed groups” but noted the submunitions sometimes did not explode and “became a danger to the civilian population.”[18]

In an April 2012 letter to the Monitor, a Ministry of External Relations official stated that the Colombian Air Force decided to stop using cluster munitions after an evaluation found that they did not meet the operational requirements or needs of Colombia.[19]

In 2011, the Monitor reported on the case of alleged cluster munition use by the Colombian Air Force at Santo Domingo in the municipality of Tame (Arauca) on 13 December 1998.[20] At the time, the incident was attributed to a car bomb detonated by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo, FARC), but a subsequent investigation showed that a World War II-era “cluster adapter” of US origin was used to disperse several 20lb (9kg) fragmentation bombs during the attack.[21] In 2011, Santo Tomas University and the CCCM conducted a detailed study on the characteristics of the bombs used in Santo Domingo that concluded they fall within the definition of a cluster munition in the Convention on Cluster Munitions.[22]

On 18 December 2012, the Inter-American Human Rights Court published its 30 November 2012 verdict on the Santo Domingo case, which found: (1) the ANM1A2 bomb meets the definition of a cluster munition; and (2) the bomb was used by the Colombian Air Force.[23] Under Section 210 of the verdict, the Inter-American Human Rights Court concluded, “the ANM1A2 device landed at 10:02:09 in the morning of 13 December 1998 fell on the main street of Santo Domingo, causing the death of 17 alleged victims and injuring 27 others.”[24] According to the court’s decision, Colombia has victims of cluster bombs and should be viewed as a state that should implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions provisions requiring victim assistance.

Stockpiling and destruction

Colombia announced the completion of the destruction of its stockpile of cluster munitions on 24 November 2009.[25] In total, Colombia destroyed 72 cluster munitions (31 ARC-32 and 41 CB-250K cluster bombs) containing 10,832 submunitions in 2009.[26]

Colombia confirmed in September 2014 that it is not retaining any cluster munitions or submunitions for training or development purposes.[27]



[1] Draft ratification legislation was first introduced in the Colombian Senate on 25 March 2010 as Bill 234/10 and passed its second debate on 19 October 2010. It was then introduced to the House of Representatives as 176/10, but was archived before the first debate took place and because the time period necessary to debate and approve the legislation had expired, the legislative approval process had to be stated again. Statement of Colombia, Convention on Cluster Munitions Second Meeting of States Parties, Beirut, 14 September 2011. The House of Representatives approved the draft ratification legislation, Bill 244, on 15 November 2012, after it received Senate approval as Bill 174 on 30 August 2012.

[3] Letter from Mauricio Gonzalez Lopez, Director for Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of External Relations, to Campaña Colombiana Contra Minas (CCCM), 11 May 2015.

[4] Statement of Colombia, Convention on Cluster Munitions Fifth Meeting of States Parties, San Jose, 2 September 2014.

[5] “ONG pide a Santos que ratifique la Convención sobre Municiones de Racimo,” El Espectador, 27 March 2015.

[6] CMC web post, “Colombia, it’s time to get on board!,” 30 April 2015.

[7] See for example, letter from Sonia Matilde Eljach Polo, Director of Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of External Relations, 19 April 2012; and statement of Colombia, Convention on Cluster Munitions Third Meeting of States Parties, Oslo, 11 September 2012.

[8] Statement of Colombia, Convention on Cluster Munitions Intersessional Meetings, Geneva, 7 April 2014.

[9] For details on Colombia’s policy and practice regarding cluster munitions through early 2009, see Human Rights Watch and Landmine Action, Banning Cluster Munitions: Government Policy and Practice (Ottawa: Mines Action Canada, May 2009), pp. 58–59.

[10] Statement of Colombia, Convention on Cluster Munitions Fifth Meeting of States Parties, San Jose, 2 September 2014.

[11] Ibid.

[12]Situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic,” UNGA Resolution 69/189, 18 December 2014. Colombia voted in favor of similar resolutions on 15 May and 18 December 2013.

[13] Email from Camilo Serna Villegas, Operations Coordinator, CCCM, 11 August 2010.

[14] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Nohra M. Quintero C., Coordinator, Internal Working Group on Disarmament and International Security, 13 May 2011.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Response to Monitor questionnaire by the Ministry of External Relations, 26 March 2010.

[17] “Exports of Cluster Bombs Authorized in the Years 1991–2001,” official document by the General Directorate of National Mobilization (Dirección General de Movilización Nacional), Ministry of National Defense document provided together with letter from Brig. Gen. Roberto Ziegele Kerber, Director-General of National Mobilizaton, Ministry of National Defense, 18 May 2012.

[18] Carlos Osorio, “Colombia destruye sus últimas bombas de tipo racimo” (“Colombia destroys its last cluster bombs”), Agence France-Presse, 7 May 2009. In 2010, the Ministry of National Defense said that the Colombian Air Force last used cluster munitions on 10 October 2006 “to destroy clandestine airstrips belonging to organizations dedicated to drug trafficking in remote areas of the country where the risk to civilians was minimal.” Ministry of National Defense presentation on cluster munitions, Slide 11, Bogotá, December 2010.

[19] Letter from Sonia Matilde Eljach Polo, Ministry of External Relations, 19 April 2012.

[20] The case was described in the draft ratification bill contained in the letter from Representative Iván Cepeda Castro to Albeiro Vanegas Osorio, Chairperson, Second Committee of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade, Defense and National Security, House of Representatives, April 2011. See also T. Christian Miller, “A Colombian Town Caught in a Cross-Fire,” Los Angeles Times, 17 March 2002.

[21] Organization of American States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights document, “Masacre de Santo Domingo, Colombia, Caso 12.416,” 22 April 2011.

[22] Santo Tomas University de Aquino and Camilo Serna, “Informe sobre el desarrollo de la Convencion sobre municiones en racimo aplicada al estado Colombiano observancia y resultados” (“Report on the development of the Convention on Cluster Munitions as applied to the Colombian State: Observations and results”), 2011.

[23] Sentence C-259 of 2012, Section B2 “The launch of a ANM1A2 device on Santo Domingo,” Inter-American Human Rights Court, “Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo vs. Colombia,” Resumen Oficial Emitido por la Court Interamericana Sentencia de 30 Noviembre de 2012.

[24] “Por tanto, la Corte concluye, tomando en consideración las conclusions de la sentencia del Juzgado 12 Penal, confirmada por el Tribunal Superior en su sentencia de 15 de junio de 2011, que el dispositivo AN-M1A2 lanzado a las 10:02:09 de la mañana del día 13 de diciembre de 1998 cayó efectivamente en la calle principal de Santo Domingo, provocando la muerte de las 17 presuntas víctimas y las heridas de otras 27.” Sentence C-259 of 2012, Section B2 “The launch of a ANM1A2 device on Santo Domingo,” Inter-American Human Rights Court, “Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo vs. Colombia,” Resumen Oficial Emitido por la Court Interamericana Sentencia de 30 Noviembre de 2012.

[25] For details on Colombia’s stockpile destruction see ICBL, Cluster Munition Monitor 2010 (Ottawa: Mines Action Canada, October 2010), pp. 135–136.

[26] Letter from Sonia Matilde Eljach Polo, Ministry of External Relations, 19 April 2012; and response to Monitor questionnaire by the Ministry of External Relations, 26 March 2010. The CB-250K bombs were produced by Chile and each contains 240 submunitions. The ARC-32 bomb is apparently a 350kg weapon containing 32 anti-runway submunitions produced by Israel.

[27] Statement of Colombia, Convention on Cluster Munitions Fourth Meeting of States Parties, San Jose, 2 September 2014. 


Mine Ban Policy

Last updated: 05 November 2015

Policy

The Republic of Colombia signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified on 6 September 2000, becoming a State Party on 1 March 2001.

National implementation legislation, Law 759, came into effect on 25 July 2002.[1] In relation to the Mine Ban Treaty, Colombia has also passed laws on victim assistance, land restitution, and civilian humanitarian demining operations. Law 1421 of 2010 permits NGOs to conduct humanitarian demining operations in the country.[2] On 13 July 2011, the Colombian Presidential Program for Comprehensive Mine Action (Programa Presidencial de Acción Integral Contra Minas Antipersonales, PAICMA) published the draft regulatory decree of Law 1421.[3] Law 3750 of 10 October 2011 regulates demining by civil society organizations.[4]

Colombia submitted its 14th Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report on 30 April 2015, which covered calendar year 2014.[5] Under national implementation measures, it reported that activities addressed by the treaty are criminalized by the penal code.[6]

Colombia has continued its activity in support of the Mine Ban Treaty at the highest levels. It hosted the Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty in Cartagena in November–December 2009. It attended the Third Review Conference in Maputo, Mozambique in June 2014, as well as the First Review Conference in Nairobi, Kenya in 2004. Colombia has participated in every Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty and almost all of the intersessional Standing Committee meetings held in Geneva since 1999, including in June 2015.

Colombia served as co-chair of the Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration in 2002–2003 and co-chaired the Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Mine Risk Education, and Mine Action Technologies in 2011.

Colombia is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its Amended Protocol II on landmines, but has never submitted a CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 annual report.

The Colombian Campaign against Landmines (Campaña Colombiana contra Minas, CCCM) works to address the country’s extensive landmine problem.[7] It has called on the government to use military demining teams to clear coca crops because civilians employed by the Colombian government to eradicate the crops have become casualties due to explosive devices.[8]

In January 2014, Vice President Angelino Garzon called on Colombia’s principle armed group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo, FARC) as well as the National Liberation Army (Unión Camilista-Ejército de Liberación Nacional, ELN) to stop using landmines.[9]

On 4 April 2015, thousands of people in different cities of the country joined the annual Remangate (“Roll-up”) action, first organized by Fundación Arcangeles in 2011, which involves people making the symbolic gesture of rolling up a pant leg in support of efforts against landmines and in solidarity with victims.[10]

In 2012, Colombian music star Juanes joined a high-level group supporting universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty.[11]

Production, transfer, use, and stockpiling

Colombia’s State Military Industry (Industria Militar, INDUMIL) ceased production of antipersonnel mines in September 1998 and destroyed its production equipment on 18 November 1999.[12]

The government of Colombia is not known to have ever exported antipersonnel mines.

Colombia reported completion of the destruction of its stockpile of 18,531 antipersonnel mines on 24 October 2004.[13]

Colombia has retained the same number of mines for training purposes since 2007. It declared a total of 586 MAP-1 mines retained for training purposes in its 2009 Article 7 report and has not provided a number in subsequent reports, but has instead declared “no change in the quantity of retained antipersonnel mines.”[14]

Colombia last destroyed or consumed mines in training activities in 2006, when 300 retained mines were destroyed in three separate events.[15]

Colombia has not reported in detail on the intended purposes and actual uses of its retained mines, as agreed by States Parties, but in 2011 Colombia informed the Monitor that the mines were “used for training the humanitarian demining units [of the armed forces], in the use of equipment for mine clearance.”[16]

Antipersonnel mines discovered during mine clearance are destroyed on site and not kept for training purposes.[17]

Use by non-state armed groups

Within the framework of ongoing peace talks between the Colombian government and the FARC-EP in Cuba, in March 2015 an agreement covering limited joint clearance activities was concluded as a confidence-building measure.[18] Alvaro Jimenez, Coordinator of the CCCM said of the agreement, “I welcome the signing of this historic agreement. I believe that with full implementation of the agreement, countless lives of Colombians will be saved. We are looking forward to see the agreement fully translated into action on the ground. On behalf of the Colombian campaign, we call on the ELN to stop using mines and to take action to get rid of landmines once and for ever.”[19] The agreement does not require FARC to halt new use or production, although it does pledge not to re-lay mines in any areas cleared.

FARC continued to use antipersonnel mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).[20] Media reports and statements by the armed forces reveal that non-state armed groups (NSAGs) continued to use landmines in 2015, despite ongoing peace talks; the Colombian Army has continued to encounter or recover newly laid mines, or caches, from FARC and the ELN in its operations. From June 2014 to June 2015, the Monitor found 105 cases of new use. Particularly in Antioquia, Caquetá, Meta, Nariño, Arauca, and Putumayo departments.[21] For example, in July 2014, two civilians were wounded after stepping on a landmine allegedly emplaced by FARC guerrillas of the mobile column Daniel Aldana on a road in the municipality of Tumaco, department of Nariño, which borders Ecuador. In August 2014, government forces discovered six pressure mines laid by FARC Front 36 in the municipalities of Barbosa and Caceres. In September 2014, FARC Front 36 was reported to have laid pressure mines in the area of the municipality of Campamento Llanadas and in the general area of the Muñoz sector of the municipality of Angostura. In October 2014, villagers discovered that mines had been laid around a school in Inza (Cauca). In November 2014, in Córdoba, Nariño, government forces discovered three IEDs abandoned by members of the FARC Front 48. In December 2014, members of the ELN Front Cimarron planted mines in a rural area of the municipality of Tado, Choco, which resulted in minor injuries to a child. In January 2015, FARC Front 40 rigged shrapnel mines at head level in a rural area of the village of Santa Elena, municipality of Plateaus, which were discovered and destroyed by Army technicians. In February 2015, two civilians were injured by a mine in the municipality of Ituango Corregimiento Santa Rita, near the village of San Marcos, which local authorities believe was likely emplaced by members of FARC Front 18. In March 2015, an Army unit encountered mines in the village of Pearls Low, in a rural area of the municipality of San Vicente del Caguan, laid by the FARC mobile column Teofilo Forero Castro to impede their movement. In April 2015, the Army encountered and destroyed a mine allegedly laid by FARC Front 15 while on operations in the municipality of El Paujil, Bolivia. In May 2015, while on operations, the Army encountered three mines laid by FARC mobile column Libardo Garcia in the municipality of Buenaventura in Valle del Cauca. In June 2015, an Army unit located and destroyed a cache of 40 FARC mines in Planadas (Tolima).[22]

In October 2014, several tons of IED-making equipment was seized in the municipality of Ricaurte in Nariño department, including explosives and detonators.[23] An October 2014 raid by Colombian forces on an ELN training camp reportedly recovered 86 “booby trap” mines and various other mine components.[24] Four victim-activated explosive devices, reportedly laid by FARC guerrillas, were found in trees in Huila department in the south of the country in September 2014, a practice first reported in 2012.[25]

Transfer and production by non-state armed groups

In the past, there were reports of mines being transferred in illegal weapons shipments to NSAGs in Colombia, but not since 2003.

NSAGs in Colombia are experts in the production of explosive devices. Both FARC and the ELN manufacture antipersonnel mines and IEDs that are both victim-activated and remotely controlled.

Colombia’s Article 7 reports contain information on mines produced by NSAGs by type, dimensions, fuzing, explosive type and content, and metallic content; the reports also include photographs and additional information. Twelve different design types are manufactured, which include antipersonnel, antivehicle, and Claymore-type directional mines, as well as IEDs. The military states that the mines are sometimes fitted with antihandling devices.[26]



[1] For details on penal sanctions and other aspects of Law 759, see Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, Form A, 6 May 2005; and Landmine Monitor Report 2005, p. 255.

[2] Statement of Colombia, Mine Ban Treaty Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Geneva, 20 June 2011.

[3]Presentación borradores de los documentos del decreto reglamentario de la Ley 1421 de 2010 y Estándares Nacionales de Desminado Humanitario” (“Presentation of draft documents of the Decree Law 1421 of 2010 and National Standards for Humanitarian Demining”), 15 July 2011.

[4] Ministry of Defense, “Decreto Número 3750 de 2011” (“Decree Number 3750 of 2011”), 10 October 2011.

[5] Previous reports were submitted in April 2014, April 2013, on 25 April 2012, 30 April 2011, 30 April 2010, 30 April 2009, in April 2008, in April 2007, and on 29 June 2006, 6 May 2005, 11 May 2004, 27 May 2003, 6 August 2002, and 15 March 2002.

[6] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, Form A, April 2014.

[7] CCCM was established in 2000 and has local sections in 22 of the 32 departments of Colombia.

[8] Anastasia Moloney, “Colombia’s coca clearers face landmine danger,” Alertnet, 30 November 2011.

[10] See, DAICMA Press Release, “Este 4 de abril ¡Remángate!,” 1 April 2015.

[11] Mine Ban Convention Implementation Support Unit Press Release, “International music superstar Juanes joins high level push to ban landmines,” 25 May 2012.

[12] Interviews with Eng. Sergio Rodríguez, Second Technical Manager, INDUMIL, 5 July 2000, and 24 July 2001. As of 2001, INDUMIL was still producing Claymore-type directional fragmentation mines. Colombia has stated that these mines are used only in command-detonated mode, as permitted by the Mine Ban Treaty. However, Colombia has not reported on steps it has taken to ensure that these mines are used only in command-detonated mode.

[13] In addition to these 18,531 mines destroyed, the government reported three other destructions of a total of 3,404 antipersonnel mines. Over the years, there have been many inconsistencies and discrepancies in Colombia’s count of stockpiled mines and their destruction. The Ministry of Defense sent a letter to the Monitor in September 2005 to clarify many of the problems. For details, see Landmine Monitor Report 2006, p. 302.

[14] “Colombia no reporta novedad con respecto al informe anterior” (“Colombia does not report any change with respect to the previous report”), Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, Form D, April 2013.

[15] In 2003 and 2004, Colombia reported it retained 986 mines for training. It reduced that number to 886 in 2005 when it decided the larger number was not necessary. It destroyed 300 more mines in 2006 (100 each in March, September, and December), but the number has not changed since December 2006. See Landmine Monitor Report 2007, pp. 267–268; and Landmine Monitor Report 2006, pp. 302–303.

[16] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Amb. Alicia Arango Olmos, Permanent Mission of Colombia to the UN in Geneva, 13 May 2011.

[17] Ibid.

[19] From social media in Colombia, sent to the Monitor by Camilo Serna, Operational Coordinator and Monitor Researcher, CCCM, 11 March 2015.

[21] June 2014–June 2015 media tracking in Colombia by Camilo Serna, CCCM, 11 July 2015. Media database of new use, unknown use, and seizures with 200 entries from the following Colombian media sources: El Tiempo, Ejército Nacional, RCN Radio, El País, La Opinión, La Voz del Cinaruco, El Líder, El Espectador, UARIV, HSB Noticias, PAICMA, Diario del Huila, El Colombiano, Crónica del Quindío, La Nación, El Nuevo Día, and Vanguardia.

[22] Ibid.

[24]Army troops discover ELN bomb factory in northern Colombia,” Colombia Reports, 6 October 2014.

[25]Tree bombs – The FARC’s new war tactic?Colombia Reports, 30 September 2014.

[26] Presentation by the Colombian Armed Forces, “Desarrollo Compromiso con la Convención de Ottawa” (“Development Commitment with the Ottawa Convention”), Bogotá, 6 March 2006. Antipersonnel mines and IEDs manufactured by armed groups are constructed out of everything from glass bottles to plastic jerry cans. The explosive used is normally ANFO (made from fertilizer), but sometimes is a conventional explosive such as TNT. The mines are initiated by pressure-activated syringe fuzes (chemical initiation), battery-operated fuzes, and electric fuzes activated by both pressure and tripwires. These mines often have high levels of metal fragmentation in them.


Mine Action

Last updated: 23 November 2015

Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 deadline: 1 March 2021
(Not on track to meet deadline)
State Party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions 

(note: clearance obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions to be detailed in 2016 update)

Recommendations

  • Colombia should take advantage of the peace treaty with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC) to significantly accelerate clearance of remaining mined areas in accordance with its obligations under the Mine Ban Treaty.
  • Colombia should elaborate, in consultation with its demining partners, national mine action standards on land release.
  • Colombia’s mine action program authorities urgently need to improve data management and planning procedures.

Contamination

The Republic of Colombia is contaminated by antipersonnel mines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and other unexploded ordnance (UXO). The extent to which is it affected by cluster munition remnants is unclear.

Mine contamination

Colombia’s mine problem is the result of decades of conflict with non-state armed groups (NSAGs). The precise extent of contamination remains unclear, though the national database contains information that at least 30 of the 32 departments may have a mine threat. As of end 2013, the most affected departments were believed to be Antioquia, Arauca, Caquetá, Cauca, Meta, Nariño, Norte de Santander, Putumayo, and Tolima.[1] According to the HALO Trust, Colombia is one of the most mine-affected countries in the world.[2] 

Colombia has stated that all existing mines and minefields laid by Colombian armed forces prior to entry into force of the Mine Ban Treaty were cleared before its initial Article 5 deadline of 1 March 2011.[3] The remaining contamination is due to mine-laying by NSAGs, whose continued and irregular use of improvised rather than factory-produced mines makes it very difficult to obtain an accurate picture of contamination.[4] Grant Salisbury, then HALO Trust’s program manager for Colombia, reportedly commented in 2013 that “Colombia is the first country that we’ve worked in, indeed the first country that I know of, where all the mines used are improvised [explosive devices] – every other country where we work, the vast majority of mines come from state factories.”[5]

The Organization of American States (OAS) had affirmed that no mined areas have been found in Colombia that could be considered as high- or medium-density minefields. So-called “nuisance mines” have been found in schools, water sources, pathways, and stream crossings.[6] In fact, the pilot project of Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), described further below, has found mines in patterns and of medium density.[7]

On 7 March 2015, negotiators for the Government of Colombia and the FARC announced that an agreement had been reached on demining.[8] According to a joint statement, the government and the FARC will select a number of pilot zones with the highest level of threat from antipersonnel mines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), UXO, or other explosive remnants of war (ERW). NPA will oversee non-technical survey of suspected hazardous areas (SHAs) and technical survey and clearance of confirmed hazardous areas (CHAs).[9] This will give a much better picture of the mine and ERW threat.

Cluster munition contamination

The extent to which Colombia is affected by cluster munition remnants is unclear. In May 2009, Colombia’s Minister of Defense, Juan Manuel Santos, acknowledged that the Colombian Armed Forces had used cluster munitions in the past “to destroy clandestine airstrips and camps held by illegal armed groups” but noted the submunitions sometimes did not explode and “became a danger to the civilian population.”[10] In 2010, the Ministry of National Defense said that the Colombian Air Force last used cluster munitions on 10 October 2006 “to destroy clandestine airstrips belonging to organizations dedicated to drug trafficking in remote areas of the country where the risk to civilians was minimal.”[11]

In November 2012, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights found that Colombia had violated the rights to life and to physical, mental, and moral integrity by using a United States (US) World War II “cluster adapter” to disperse fragmentation bombs during an attack on the village of Santo Domingo in December 1998.[12] A helicopter dropped an AN-M1A2 cluster munition containing six submunitions, killing 17 civilians, including six children, and injuring a further 27 civilians, including nine children, and displacing the village’s inhabitants. Colombia sought to attribute the deaths to a bomb placed by FARC guerrillas.[13]

Program Management

Established on 30 July 2002 under Law No. 759/2002, the National Interministerial Commission on Anti-personnel Mine Action (Comisión Intersectorial Nacional para la Acción contra Minas Antipersonal, CINAMAP) is the National Mine Action Authority responsible for implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty, including development of a national plan, policy decisions, and coordination of international assistance.[14] Two new key actors for mine action in Colombia are the Victims Unit and the Land Restitution Unit, neither of which existed when CINAMAP was created. Changes to the law are needed in order for them to become full members of CINAMAP.[15]

The Presidential Program for Comprehensive Mine Action (Programa Presidencial para la Acción Integral contra Minas Antipersonal, PAICMA) previously served as the technical secretary of CINAMAP. It was responsible for coordinating implementation of the 2009–2019 Integrated Mine Action Plan, whose aims were to minimise the socio-economic impact of mines, IEDs, and ERW, as well as to implement sustainable development programs in affected communities.[16] In September 2014, however, Decree 1649 modified the structure of the Presidency’s Administrative Department, creating the Directorate for Comprehensive Mine Action (Dirección para la Acción Integral contra minas Antipersonal, DAICMA) to replace PAICMA.[17] The DAICMA has retained the same mandate and functions as PAICMA; the only change being that the DAICMA is now supporting the Minister-Advisor for Post-Conflict, Human Rights, and Security and the Minister-Advisor’s office in the strategic management of the national mine action program.[18]

The Interagency Humanitarian Demining Group (Instancia Interinstitucional de Desminado Humanitario), commonly referred to as the Instancia Interinstitucional , is the government’s decision-making body for humanitarian demining, comprising the director of the DAICMA, the Minister of Defence, and the Inspector General of the army.[19] It approves accreditation, national standards, tasks, and clearance priorities. The OAS and UNMAS have served as advisors to the Interagency Group on accreditation and national standards.[20]

HALO Trust has stated that lengthy bureaucratic processes interfere with efficient operational planning of mine action. According to HALO’s program manager, Nick Smart, Colombia “has a clear and pressing need for demining but up until now the government’s response to the issue has been slow. For example, the assignation of a municipality for demining can take up to six months to process. Streamlining routine procedures such as municipality assignation, the deployment of teams to minefields and the submission and monitoring of operational reports would mean that Colombia’s severe mines problem could be addressed in a more rapid and effective way.”[21]

The OAS serves as the monitoring body for humanitarian demining in Colombia.[22] The OAS is responsible for managing and implementing a national monitoring system on behalf of the Interagency Group.[23] The OAS has been serving as an advisor to the Interagency Group on accreditation of NGOs in Colombia,[24] but it was planned to transfer all of its responsibilities to the DAICMA by the end of 2017.[25]

Since 2010, UNMAS has been advising the DAICMA on a legal and technical mine action framework to allow NGOs to conduct mine clearance. UNMAS has also assisted the DAICMA in accreditation and monitoring procedures as well as management processes.[26]

Strategic planning 

Colombia’s Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 deadline extension request projected that all mined areas would be released by 2020.[27] Colombia’s 2011–2013 operational plan was to address 6,000 dangerous and mined areas in 14 of 660 mine-suspected municipalities covering an estimated 15km2.[28] Colombia did not reach its targets.

Colombia was due to submit an operational plan for 2014–2020 at the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties in December 2013, but did not do so. Colombia did present a demining “action plan” for 2014–2016 at the Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference in Maputo in July 2014.[29] The plan foresees a first phase of mine action in 91 municipalities and steadily increasing national army demining capacity to 54 units as well as the number of non-technical survey teams to 15 by 2016.[30]

Standards

National mine action standards were said to have been developed based on the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS),[31] but as of late 2015, new standards were being elaborated for adoption in early 2016.[32] Through a July 2014 resolution, Colombia adopted standing operating procedures for humanitarian demining.[33]

HALO has noted, however, that the current interpretation of the national standards for demining is that once a municipality has been surveyed, the operator is obliged to clear any known minefields within that area. As a result, operators are often required to clear low-priority minefields, running the “risk that higher priority areas may not be addressed in a timely manner. A simple but much-needed reform would be to allow operators to prioritise areas for clearance according to the greatest humanitarian need, allowing donor resources to be more effectively employed.”[34]

Information management

Poor information management has been a feature of Colombia’s mine action program since its inception. While a lack of access has undoubtedly played a role in this, efforts to verify and consolidate meaningful mine action data have proved inadequate. HALO has found that the information stored on the national IMSMA database is largely inaccurate; over the course of operations in five municipalities since September 2013, HALO’s survey teams have discredited 84% of IMSMA “events” investigated, while 91 of the 106 minefields identified (86%) were not registered on the national database at all.[35]

Government decree 1649 of 2014 assigned to the DAICMA responsibility for maintaining the IMSMA database and to “compile, systematise, centralise, and update relevant information” to serve as a basis for program planning.[36] This remains a central challenge for the program.

Operators

The Armed Forces Humanitarian Demining Battalion (Fuerzas Armadas del Batallón de Desminado Humanitario, BIDES) has been conducting humanitarian demining since 2005, when it began clearance of 35 military bases. It completed the clearance in 2010.[37] At the end of 2014, BIDES comprised 482 staff including 392 soldiers.[38]

In September 2013, HALO Trust became the first NGO to conduct demining in Colombia when it began clearance operations at the El Morro minefield, Nariño municipality, in Antioquia department.[39] In 2014, HALO continued its operations in Antioquia, “a region of particular interest for HALO, since it is the most mine-affected department in the country, accounting for 22% of the 11,202 mine casualties registered in Colombia to date.”[40] In 2014, HALO employed 21 survey staff and 81 demining staff.[41] In 2015, HALO reported that it was seeking to expand from 200 to 800 deminers over the following five years to support Colombia’s implementation of its Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 obligations.[42]

NPA formally initiated a mine action program in April 2015, having participated as an observer in the peace talks that concerned demining. The first step in the process of implementing the agreement on demining was the conduct of non-technical survey of contamination in the departments of Meta and Antioquia.[43] NPA will largely operate in territory controlled by the FARC.[44]

Land Release

Survey in 2014

HALO Trust conducted non-technical survey in 2014 in the municipalities of Carmen de Viboral, La Union, Nariño, San Rafael and Sonsón. HALO cancelled 60 "events" recorded by the national authority, which indicate a potential mine threat.[45] At the same time, HALO confirmed 43 areas as mined, totalling 105,144m².[46] 

HALO has observed that the “irregular nature of the conflict in Colombia has meant that mines have often been laid sporadically and without any kind of set pattern…which presents challenges for survey teams when defining minefields. The collection of information can also be difficult in areas where the population has been displaced during the conflict years, resulting in a lack of knowledge about the history of minelaying. Furthermore, local communities are often afraid to share mine information for fear of retribution from armed groups.” By recruiting and training people from the mine-impacted communities, HALO has sought to build trust among the local population while ensuring that its survey teams possess a thorough knowledge of the areas in which they work.[47]

HALO also conducted technical survey in two areas during 2014, reducing 1,776m² of mined area. No mines or ERW were destroyed in the process.[48]

Clearance in 2014

Mine clearance in 2014[49]

Operator

Areas released

Area cleared (m²)

Antipersonnel mines destroyed

Antivehicle mines destroyed

UXO destroyed

HALO Trust

27

75,960

83

0

4

BIDES

368

512,253

N/R

N/R

183*

Clearance during military operations

N/R

N/R

N/R

N/R

6,480*

Total

395

588,213

83

0

6,667

Note: * Colombia has not disaggregated items destroyed for 2014 so all have been listed as UXO; N/R = not reported

HALO has reported that “[d]emining in Colombia presents a unique set of challenges to both operations and logistics. Minefields are frequently inaccessible by paved road, which creates difficulties when setting up remote camps and delivering supplies. HALO has adopted the local solution of using mules, and sources building materials and supplies locally wherever possible in order to minimise logistical requirements. This not only increases efficiency but also means that additional donor funding is remitted to the local population…The conditions on minefields themselves also pose challenges to HALO’s operations: mines containing minimum metal, highly mineralised soil, thick vegetation, dense root structures, and wet and stormy weather conditions all have an impact on deminers’ productivity.”[50] 

There are no reports of any submunitions being destroyed during demining operations in 2014.

Progress in 2015

In 2015, HALO has been working in south-east Antioquia, in the municipalities of Abejorral, Carmen de Viboral, La Union, Nariño, San Rafael, and Sonsón. HALO was aiming to complete and hand over the municipalities of La Union and Nariño by the end of the year. HALO also planned to operate in two new departments before the end of 2015.[51]

Article 5 Compliance

Under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty (and in accordance with the 10-year extension granted by States Parties in 2010), Colombia is required to destroy all antipersonnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but not later than 1 March 2021. It is not on track to meet this deadline.

In its statement to the Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Colombia stated that it would not be able to free the country of landmines by 2025.[52] The ongoing survey combined with the successful implementation of the peace agreement should allow Colombia to give an estimated timeframe for fulfilment of its Article 5 obligations before the expiry of its 2021 deadline.



[1] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for 2013), Form C; and Landmine Monitor analysis of available data.

[2] HALO Trust, “Colombia,” undated.

[3] Revised Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 deadline Extension Request, Executive Summary, 13 August 2010.

[4] Statement of Colombia, Mine Ban Treaty Intersessional Meetings (Standing Committee on Mine Action), Geneva, 11 April 2014.

[5] B. Hansen-Bundy, “Landmines major obstacle for land restitution: NGO,” Colombia Reports, 12 March 2013.

[6] Email from Carl Case, OAS, 29 June 2012.

[7] Email from Zlatko Vezilic, Colombia Country Director, NPA, 5 November 2015.

[8] See, e.g., C. Voelkel, “Demining the Path to Peace in Colombia,” International Crisis Group, 10 March 2015.

[9]Acuerdo Sobre Limpieza y Descontaminación del Territorio de la Presencia de Minas Antipersonal (MAP), Artefactos Explosivos Improvisados (AEI) y Municiones Sin Explotar (MUSE) o Restos Explosivos de Guerra (REG) en general” (“Agreement on Clearance of Areas Contaminated with anti-personnel mines, IEDs, and ERW”), Joint Statement #52, Havana, 7 March 2015; and email from Zlatko Vezilic, NPA, 5 November 2015.

[10] Carlos Osorio, “Colombia destruye sus últimas bombas de tipo racimo” (“Colombia destroys its last cluster bombs”), Agence France-Presse, 7 May 2009.

[11] Ministry of National Defense presentation on cluster munitions, Bogotá, December 2010.

[12] Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo v. Colombia, Official Summary in Spanish, 30 November 2012; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Masacre de Santo Domingo, Colombia, Case No. 12.416, 22 April 2011.

[13] Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo v. Colombia, Judgment, Series C, No. 259, 30 November 2012, §§210–30 (in Spanish).

[14] Acta CINAMAP 02/2013, 18 December 2013, pp. 3–4.

[15] Acta CINAMAP 02/2013, 2013/12/18, pp. 3–4.

[16] Presidency of Colombia, Decree 2150 of 2007.

[17] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for 2014), Form A.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ministry of Defence, Regulatory Decree No. 3750 of 2011.

[20] Emails from Carl Case, OAS, 29 June 2012; and Marc Bonnet, Programme Manager/Senior Technical Advisor, UNMAS, 23 September 2013.

[21] Email from Nick Smart, Programme Manager, HALO Trust Colombia, 23 October 2015.

[23] OAS, “Humanitarian Mine Action-Colombia,” Mine Action, Arms Control, Destruction of Ammunition Projects Portfolio 2010–2011, 2011, pp. 34–38.

[24] OAS Annual Report, “Mine Action Colombia 2012.”

[25] Email from Zlatko Vezilic, NPA, 5 November 2015.

[26] UNMAS, “UNMAS Annual Report 2012,” August 2013, p. 7.

[27] Revised Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 13 August 2010, p. 66.

[28] Government of Colombia, Plan de Acción de Desminado Humanitario 2014–2016 (Humanitarian Demining Action Plan 2014–2016), undated but 2014.

[29] Statement of Colombia, Mine Ban Treaty Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties, December 2013.

[30] Statement of Colombia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, June 2014.

[31] Government of Colombia, Humanitarian Demining Action Plan 2014–2016, p. 6.

[32] Email from Zlatko Vezilic, NPA, 5 November 2015.

[33] Resolución No. 104 el 7 de julio de 2014, adopting the “Procedimientos Operaciones de Desminado Humanitario realizado por el Batallón de Desminado N° 60 ‘CR Gabino Gutiérrez.’” Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for 2014), Form A.

[34] Email from Nick Smart, HALO Trust, 23 October 2015.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for 2014), Form C.

[37] PAICMA, “Desminado Humanitario,” undated.

[38] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for 2014), Form F.

[39] HALO Trust, “HALO starts humanitarian demining operations in Colombia,” 24 September 2013.

[40] Email from Nick Smart, HALO Trust, 23 October 2015.

[41] Ibid.

[42] HALO Trust, “Where We Work: Colombia,” undated.

[43] See, for example, S. Wills, “Colombia Launches National Demining Program,” Digital Military Magazine, 10 April 2015.

[44] Interview with Steinar Essen, Head, Humanitarian Disarmament Department, NPA, in Stavern, 27 October 2015.

[45] Email from Nick Smart, HALO Trust, 23 October 2015. [Note, this sentence referred to in this footnote was updated September 27, 2016.]

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid

[48] Ibid.

[49] Ibid.; and Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for 2014), Form F. Figures in Colombia’s Article 7 Report for clearance in 2014 by HALO Trust (31,690m2) differ to those provided directly by HALO to NPA as they refer only to completed clearance of mined areas within 2014. Email from Nick Smart, HALO Trust, 27 October 2015.

[50] Email from Nick Smart, HALO Trust, 23 October 2015.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Statement of Colombia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, June 2014.


Casualties and Victim Assistance

Last updated: 08 December 2015

Action points based on findings

  • Simplify processes for mine/explosive remnants of war (ERW) survivors to access their rights under the Victim’s Law, including ensuring that out of pocket expenses for a range of services are covered within insurance systems.
  • Dedicate resources to the full implementation of a range of new policies and programs, including those promoting the rights of persons with disabilities.
  • Ensure survivors and their families/communities living in rural areas have the means to access their rights, including services and reparation.
  • Ensure large government economic inclusion programs that target armed conflict victims are adjusted to include mine/ERW survivors.
  • Develop peer support networks for survivors and persons with disabilities.

Victim assistance commitments

The Republic of Colombia is responsible for a significant number of landmine and ERW survivors who are in need. Cluster munition victims have also been reported. Colombia has made commitments to provide victim assistance through the Mine Ban Treaty and is a State Party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Colombia ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) on 5 May 2011.

Casualties [1]

Casualties Overview

All known casualties by end 2014

11,102 mine/ERW casualties (2,219 killed; 8,883 injured)

Casualties in 2014

286 (2013: 374)

2014 casualties by outcome

40 killed; 246 injured (2013: 40 killed; 334 injured) [2]

2014 casualties by device type

246 antipersonnel mines; 40 other ERW

In 2014, the Department for Comprehensive Action Against Antipersonnel Mines (Dirección para la Acción Integral contra Minas Antipersonal, DAICMA) [3] recorded 286 casualties from antipersonnel mines and ERW. [4]

In 2014, as in all previous years since 2002, the majority of casualties (187, or 65%) were military personnel. [5] Civilians (99) made up 35% of the total casualties, a 10% decrease compared to 2013 and 2012 (45% in both years); but a similar percentage to 2011 and other past years. [6]

Almost half (45, or 45%) of civilian casualties were children (33 boys; 12 girls). This represents a significant increase compared to 2013, when 35% of civilian casualties were children, and continued the steady trend of increasing child casualties as a percentage of annual civilian casualties first observed for 2010 when children were 14% of civilian casualties, increasing to 22% in 2011, and to 30% in 2012. The percentage of child casualties in 2014 was almost three times that observed in 2010. Child casualties also increased in absolute terms since 2010 when there were 28 child casualties.

There were three casualties among women, a number similar to the five women casualties in 2013, but a sharp decrease from the 32 women casualties in 2012. [7] The remainder of the casualties and the majority of recorded civilian casualties (81%) were men. In 2014, there were three civilian casualties among manual coca eradicators employed by the Program for the Eradication of Illicit Cultivation (Programas contra Cultivos Il ícitos , PCI). [8] This was a significant decrease compared with the 27 casualties among coca eradicators in 2013 and the 52 reported in 2012. In 2014, DAICMA continued to collaborate with the PCI. Fluctuations in the annual number of coca eradicator casualties were due to the changing nature of armed conflict and varying tactics employed to counter drug eradication measures. [9] The number of casualties among security forces (police or military) occurring during coca eradication remained unknown through August 2015. [10]

Cumulatively, from 2006 through April 2015, there were at least 369 reported civilian casualties among coca eradicators; at least 42 people were killed and 324 were injured, and it was unknown whether the remaining three casualties survived. [11] The DAICMA casualty database contained information on 350 civilian casualties (40 people killed and 310 injured) who were recorded as coca eradicators in the same period. [12]

The overall mine/ERW casualty total in 2014 (286) represents a significant decrease of almost a quarter (24%) in annual casualties when compared with the 374 casualties recorded in 2013. Between 2006 and 2010, the Monitor identified a trend of declining annual casualty rates that had been ongoing since a peak of almost 1,200 casualties recorded annually in 2005 and 2006. [13] In 2011 and 2012, the decline slowed with annual casualty totals remaining fairly consistent, at 496 and 549 casualties per year, followed by a drop once again in 2013.

Between 1990 and the end of 2014, DAICMA recorded 11,021 casualties (2,207 killed; 8,814 injured). [14] Civilians accounted for 37% (4,145) of the total and children accounted for 27% (1,123) of civilian casualties. Casualties have been recorded in 31 of Colombia’s 32 departments. The departments of Antioquia, Caquetá, Meta, Nariño, Meta, and Norte de Santander registered the highest number of casualties and accounted for more than half of the total (55%). As of June, 5,539 mine/ERW victims were registered with Colombia’s Registry of Victims. [15]

Cluster munition casualties

As identified in Case No. 12.416 (Santo Domingo Massacre versus the Republic of Colombia) heard before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 17 civilians were killed and 27 were injured during a cluster munition strike in Santo Domingo, Colombia on 13 December 1998. [16]

Victim Assistance

There were at least 8,814 mine/ERW survivors in Colombia as of June 2015. [17]

Victim assistance since 1999 [18]

Since monitoring began in 1999, mine/ERW survivors in Colombia have faced serious obstacles in accessing emergency medical attention, ongoing medical care, and physical rehabilitation because these services have been available only in major cities, while most mine incidents occur in rural and remote areas, as well as in conflict zones. In 1999, social and economic inclusion and psychological support for survivors was virtually nonexistent, even in most major cities, with the exception of two facilities in Bogota, which have consistently provided comprehensive rehabilitation services that include psychological support.

During the period, several actors worked to improve and increase the availability of rehabilitation services. Among these efforts, a comprehensive rehabilitation center opened in the department of Caqueta, while rehabilitation centers in Antioquia and Valle del Cauca improved to include psychological support and vocational rehabilitation. In 2006, the ICRC began a mine action program in Colombia that included collecting data on mine/ERW casualties, helping survivors to access victim assistance, and strengthening the physical rehabilitation sector to improve the quality and accessibility of these services. The OAS Mine Action Program (Acción Integral contra las Minas Antipersonales Colombia, AICMA-CO) started its victim assistance activities in 2007.

Through the work of national and international NGOs and Colombian authorities, more than 60 local disabled persons’ organizations (DPOs) and approximately 20 survivor associations have been formed since 1999, gradually increasing opportunities for peer-to-peer support as well as socio-economic inclusion. [19] However, most associations and DPOs have had limited impact due to a lack of capacity and financial support.

Decreasing international funding for NGOs since 2012 limited their efforts to fill gaps in existing care and to facilitate access by paying for transportation and accommodation. [20]

Throughout the period, a series of laws have outlined the rights of survivors of mines and ERW as victims of terrorism or conflict through a process called the“Route of Attention” (“Ruta de Atencion”) for mine/ERW victims, which is the legal framework through which victims can access their rights to compensation, rehabilitation, and other components of assistance by registering as victims and having the cost of assistance paid for or reimbursed through special government funds. [21] However, complicated procedures to register as a mine victim and delayed reimbursements have meant that many survivors could not access the care they needed or had to depend on support from the ICRC and NGOs to facilitate access or pay for services. The National Victims’ Law of 2011 guarantees comprehensive assistance to all mine survivors as reparations for violations of their rights resulting from ongoing armed conflict. Coordination of its implementation is the responsibility of the Unit for the Assistance and Comprehensive Reparation of Victims (Unidad para la Atención y Reparación Integral a Víctimas, or Victim’s Unit). However, as of 2014, many survivors had not yet experienced the benefits of this law.

Government coordination of victim assistance began in Colombia in 2002 through the Antipersonnel Mines Observatory, which was replaced in June 2007 with DAICMA. Throughout the period, victim assistance coordination mechanisms have varied and at times have lacked continuity, a result of changes and restructuring within DAICMA and changes with the legal frameworks that outline the rights and assistance available to mine/ERW survivors. Colombia has a strong legal framework to assist and integrate persons with disabilities and there were notable advances over the years, but many of these policies are not entirely put into practice due to the lack of resources.

Health and physical rehabilitation services remain inaccessible for the poorest living in areas affected by the armed conflict. [22]

Victim assistance in 2014

Moderate changes were reported in the overall availability or access to services and programs for mine/ERW survivors. While there were still a lot of mine/ERW survivors waiting for services and benefits, service providers and organizations working with survivors gained a better understanding of the Route of Attention process to access survivors’ rights at the local and departmental levels, improving the overall quality and effectiveness of services received by survivors and reducing delays. Overall access to assistance services therefore improved a little as a result of promotion and socialization of the Victim’s Law and the Route of Attention by the government. However, survivors still struggle to access the benefits of the Victim’s Law as they face multiple financial, physical, and administrative barriers to obtain basic medicines and rehabilitation services.

National and international NGOs continued to fill gaps in assistance, particularly in transportation to access services, in economic and social inclusion programs, and in psychological support, which should be addressed through the system of benefits provided by the government. The majority of mine/ERW survivors lived in rural and remote areas with limited access to transportation and communication.

The government program launched in 2013 to increase access to psychological assistance for armed conflict victims continued to be implemented, but the consequent expectations of improvement in this area were not met in 2014.

In 2014, there was an increased focus on gender- and age-appropriate assistance, though this was mostly at the level of policy with a limited impact in practice, especially at the local level where a lack of awareness made it difficult to apply a gender-/age-based approach. Nevertheless, various organizations working with survivors reported applying gender- and/or age-differentiated approaches in their interventions. [23]

Law 1618, the national law to guarantee the rights of persons with disabilities, aligned with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), was approved in February 2013, and a national disability policy was approved in December 2013 to ensure the implementation of the law. In 2014, recommendations on the national policy on disability and social inclusion were developed to address the inclusion of CRPD’s and national norms on disability rights principles in the elaboration of departmental and municipal Route of Attention processes for mine/ERW/IED victims. A disability-related land management guide was also developed for governors and mayors of the country.

Assessing victim assistance needs

Colombia’s Mine Ban Treaty’s implementing law 759 of 2002, establishes that the Antipersonnel Mine Observatory collects, systematizes, centralizes, and updates all information on antipersonnel mines and facilitates decision making on prevention, marking, mapping, removal, and victim assistance. [24] Additional sources of information on mine-related accidents are the departmental and local committees on mine action and transitional justice, emergency centers, hospitals, departmental and municipal health centers, the national Department of Social Protection, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, and the Ombudsman’s Office. Various agreements with other public institutions, humanitarian international and national organizations, and national/regional NGOs have also been signed to complement the information provided and contribute to its verification, validation, and update. [25]

GICHD worked with DAICMA to add the new module to the Information Management System of Mine Action (IMSMA) database. [26]

In 2014, the ICRC maintained its Memorandum of Understanding with DAICMA to contribute to the IMSMA database, and provided a database expert for a six-month period. [27] Handicap International (HI) continued to provide updated information on mine/ERW casualties for entry into the database. [28]

The National Disability System also manage the Registry for Identification of Persons with Disabilities, which is complemented by a national database called SISPRO managed by the Ministry of Health and Social Protection that compiles information on the population of persons with disabilities. [29]

In 2014, DAICMA, with support of the Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines (Campaña Colombiana Contra Minas, CCCM), began implementing a victim assistance capacity-building project with use of information technological tools for the following objectives: a) Collect information on mine victims at the national level using the general social protection or other existing information systems’ registries and technological tools; b) Design a national strategy, which allows for collection and update of basic information of all registered mine victims; c) Systematize updated information on all mine victims at the national level. [30]

From the second half of 2014 through the first quarter of 2015, DAICMA conducted a survey to collect information on the needs of mine/ERW survivors while informing them on how to register for services and benefits. [31] The survey gathered information on demographic, socio-economic, and cultural conditions in accordance with the Route of Attention process. [32] During 2014, Paz y Democracia and the Departmental Government of Antioquia continued implementing the DAICMA survey and increasing its coverage. [33] Upon completion, survey information was shared with relevant institutions including the National System of Attention and Reparation to Victims (SNARIV). [34]

The Organization of American States (OAS) Mine Action Program in Colombia (Acción Integral contra Minas Antipersonales, AICMA) continued collecting information on casualties directly through contact with the survivors, local authorities, and community leaders. The information is collected and shared according the DAICMA’s standards and includes data on location, socio-economic, and family situation. The OAS also collects information on the victims’ family members in the departments of Antioquia, Bolivar, Caldas, and Santander. [35] The OAS reported semiannually to DAICMA on its activities and financial support. [36]

Several NGOs, including the CCCM, HI, and the ICRC in collaboration with the Colombian Red Cross, and Paz y Democracia, continued to collect information about the needs of mine/ERW victims and other persons with disabilities on an ongoing basis. In all cases, NGOs reported that this information was shared with DAICMA for inclusion in the mine/ERW victim database. Information was collected on the victims’ quality of life, the state of their prosthesis, rehabilitation services, and general assistance provided and was obtained through ongoing contact with survivor associations, community leaders, and volunteers, and through consulting sessions. [37] In 2014, HI also included data on caregivers. [38] There was some overlap between information on mine/ERW incidents and victims gathered by the ICRC and the CCCM , they were cooperating to include more survivors in assistance support provided by the ICRC . [39]

Through radio and cellphone calls, the Survivor Association of San Carlos, Antioquia was able to locate 35 victims in remote areas. [40]

In 2014, a partnership between the CCCM and Método received funds from UNDP to collect economic and productive data on municipalities where victims are located. [41] During the year, the CCCM developed a survey on the vulnerability of rights that was applied to 250 survivors in various departments in order to collect detailed information on access to health and rehabilitation services. In 2014, the CCCM implemented a pilot record of victims of weapons prohibited or regulated by international humanitarian law, which complements the existing record of survivors of landmines, unexploded ordinance (UXO) and IEDs. [42] In 2015, the CCCM also initiated a survey to assess the correlation between forced displacement and antipersonnel mines. [43]

The Antioquia departmental victim assistance coordinating mechanism continued to follow-up on mine/ERW survivors and provide assistance. There was also a general coordination of casualty reporting, including by community leaders or volunteers of Paz y Democracia and the CCCM. The coordination group presented a policy paper, including a comprehensive mine/ERW survivor situation analysis, to the Ministry of Health. [44]

NGOs and service providers reported that, by 2014, the mine/ERW victim database managed by DAICMA was more complete than in some previous years, most especially for victims of recent mine/ERW incidents as a result of the improvement of data collection efforts in recent years. [45] However, in 2014, it was still believed that some victims, especially civilians and whose accident occurred many years ago, were not included in the database, and updating information on the needs and services received remains a challenge. The was thought to be because they were unaware of their rights and/or had difficulties in registering and reporting their personal information due to the fear of repercussions from non-state armed groups if they reported the incident. Survivors also feared being accused by the armed forces of handling IEDs. Other reasons included: mistrust of government institutions; being denied the victim’ status; delays between the accident and its registry by the government prevented access to benefits; or because some victims reported the incident in a different department to where it occurred. [46]

During 2014, DAICMA continued to work to share its data on mine/ERW victims with the registry managed by the Victim’s Unit. As of June 2015, 5,539 mine/ERW victims were registered in the Registry of Victims; [47] this figure was less than half of the total number of mine/ERW victims recorded by DAICMA in the same period. DAICMA was working to better align the victim assistance component of its data with the registration process of the Victim’s Unit , particularly with regard to indirect victims as well as direct victim (survivors and persons killed) to expedite the registration of victims on both systems. It had to verify the identification documents of victims through the Victim’s Unit registry in order to better coordinate the exchange of information. [48]

In 2014, DAICMA also coordinated with the Ministry of Health and Social Protection to share information on victims when an accident occurs, in order to guarantee appropriate assistance and follow-up along the Route of Attention. [49]

The CCCM, reported that there were great efforts made by DAICMA and the Victim’s Unit in 2014 to record mine/ERW victims. It noted, however, that there were discrepancies between survivor data collected in IMSMA and in the Victim’s Unit’s databases due of a lack of capacity to cross-check information. [50] Paz y Democracia identified a need to harmonize data collection procedures between local, municipal, and national levels in order to make the information available more quickly. [51] The OAS reported that in the municipalities where it is present, the government’s registries are complete. [52] The Victim’s Unit made efforts to register people, but delays were a concern as the deadline for registering victims approached. [53]

The National Public Health Monitoring System (Sistema de Vigilancia en Salud Pública, SIVIGILA) includes casualties of explosive devices within its reporting activities. [54]

Victim assistance coordination [55]

Government coordinating body/focal point

DAICMA

Coordinating mechanism

National Victim Assistance Committee and sub-committees at the national and departmental levels on information management, socio-economic inclusion, and psychosocial support with governmental and non-governmental representatives (mostly inactive); technical sub-committees of the Executive Committee for the Comprehensive Reparation and Assistance for Victims of Violence (Comité Ejecutivo de Atención y Reparación Integral a las Víctimas, or Executive Committee for Reparations )

Plan

National Plan for the Comprehensive Assistance for Mine/ERW Victims; National Plan for the Comprehensive Reparation and Assistance for Victims of Violence

 

Coordination

In 2014, DAICMA held coordination and planning meetings with various national and international organizations to monitor and evaluate assistance to mine/ERW victims. These meetings allowed for greater coverage of victim assistance.

The Victim’s Unit held numerous meetings of its executive committee and 10 different sub-committees, most of which had the purpose of fulfilling commitments to compensate and assist victims of armed conflict, including mine/ERW victims.

In addition, since 2007, Colombia has a National Disability System (Sistema Nacional de Discapacidad, SND) composed of representatives of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection and of the National Disability Council, which assesses, monitors, and evaluates the SND and the national disability policy. The SND also includes department and municipal councils in which victim assistance actors participate, working to advance the rights of persons with disabilities. [56] Their activities are mainly the dissemination of disability issues , training of government staff, and the implementation of the Registry for identification of Persons with Disabilities ( Registro para la Localización y Caracterización de las Personas con Discapacidad, - RLCPD). [57]

In 2014, in an effort to coordinate actions by the National Disability System and SNARIV, five territorial meetings were led addressing three main themes: 1) the disability policy approach compared withother victim assistance policies; 2) Progress in the regulation of Law 1618; 3) Sharing experiences about the Inclusive Colombia strategy. The meetings allowed for a better understanding of the legal framework regulating both persons with disabilities and victims of the armed conflict, and for the creation of common participation spaces at the national level. [58]

The National Plan for Comprehensive Assistance to Victims of Landmines, ERW, and IEDs developed through national and regional consultations by DAICMA in 2013 was presented to the National Intersectorial Commission for Mine Action (CINAMAP) in February 2014. DAICMA led a technical victim assistance workshop, with the participation of the CCCM, as well as of survivors and their representative organizations. To facilitate its implementation during the year, agreements were made with governmental institutions such as the Victim’s Unit, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Agriculture. Monitoring of the plan is carried out directly by DAICMA. [59]

In 2014, six meetings were organized in order to monitor the cases of coca eradicator casualties regarding access to their rights and the overcoming of barriers to access assistance through the established process Route of Attention. [60]

In an effort to decentralize victim assistance, DAICMA worked with local authorities to develop departmental Route of Attention processes for mine/ERW survivors in Putumayo, Nariño, Cauca, and Tolima. In the first months of 2014, these were updated in the departments of Bolívar, Valle del Cauca, Arauca, Cesar, Santander, Huila, Chocó, Cauca, Vaupés, and Casanare, as well as in the city of Bogotá. [61] During the year, the Route of Attention for the department of Antioquia was finalized and included in the department’s prevention and contingency plans. [62] A Route of Attention was also developed in the department of Caqueta. [63] Coordination boards in the departments of Putumayo and Nariño, put in place by DAICMA, improved inter-institutional cooperation in monitoring and addressing survivors’ needs. [64]

Following decisions by the Constitutional Court, the national Route of Comprehensive Assistance for mine/ERW/IED victims was updated in 2014 to strengthen comprehensive rehabilitation services. Throughout the year, a total of 977 members of public forces and 86 civilians were informed of how to access their rights through this process. [65] Also, the adoption of a new DAICMA strategy in 2014 allowed for procedural improvements for obtaining services and reparations, such as reducing delays in registration, priority access to reparation and assistance plans, and priority for survivors with personal injuries. [66]

In 2014, survivors associations reported having a better understanding of the Victim’s Law in general and its processes. [67] Coordination of service provision at the departmental level was seen to be more efficient. Improvements in coordination between national and departmental levels as well as with national and international NGOs resulted in gaps in assistance to survivors being identified and addressed. [68]

DAICMA also developed separate Route of Attention processes for mine/ERW survivors and family members from vulnerable groups such as indigenous persons, Afro-Colombian populations, and persons with disabilities, as well as children and adolescents—the latter being in application since the second half of 2014. The Route of Attention for indigenous people was reported to have been completed in 2014 in the department of Guaviare and Meta. [69] However, some organizations working with survivors had found that the process had not yet been finalized as of mid-2015. [70] Colombia also published a Guide for the Comprehensive Assistance for Boys, Girls, and Adolescent Mine Victims. [71] The CCCM noted however, that it was not aware of any Route of Attention process developed from a gender-based approach. [72]

There were also several bilateral and multi-stakeholder coordination meetings among NGOs, service providers, and survivor networks in 2014. [73] These meetings improved the situation for mine/ERW survivors by optimizing the use of scarce resources, increasing knowledge of their needs, and expediting assistance for urgent cases. [74] In 2014, the CCCM coordinated joint meetings between authorities, local organizations, and the departments to foster participation in the development of municipal and departmental Route of Attention processes. [75]

In 2014, DAICMA continued to participate as a member of the technical subcommittees of reparation and rehabilitation of the Victim’s Unit for Reparations Executive Committee. The subcommittee on rehabilitation monitored the“Program for Psycho-social and Comprehensive Health of Victims” (“Programa de Atención Psicosocial y Salud Integral a Víctimas,” PAPSIVI) and the Victim’s Unit psychosocial recovery program. An evaluation of the social reintegration program“Entrelazando” was also undertaken. [76]

DAICMA reported that inter-institutional coordination meetings on victim assistance increased the visibility of the specific needs of mine/ERW victims, and improved their condition, such as better access to reparations. [77] NGOs reported participating in department-level disability, victims’ rights, reparations, and transitional justice committees in order to support the inclusion of mine/ERW survivors and victims’ rights in local processes. [78]

National Plan

The National Plan for the Comprehensive Reparation and Assistance for Victims of Violence, under the Victim’s Law (adopted in 2012) [79] is supported by an implementation strategy, guidelines, a budget, and a monitoring mechanism. [80] Ongoing monitoring of the plan is the responsibility of the Victim’s Unit through thematic sub-committees under the Executive Committee. [81] In 2014, monitoring of the plan was also carried out by territorial Victim’s Units through the presentation of reports, bulletins, and publications on the management of the SNARIV. [82] Survivor associations also participated in the monitoring of the plan. [83]

In 2014, the ongoing efforts to implement the plan allowed for a better knowledge of victim assistance public policies and of the services available through the Route of Attention. Direct government assistance to survivors increased, and the needs of the victims were also made more visible. [84]

 DAICMA updated the national Route of Attention to include the assistance and reparations guaranteed through the Victim’s Law in 2013 with regard to survivors of mine/ERW incidents as well as family members of survivors and family members of people killed. This included how to register and access healthcare and education and other benefits, vocational training, and compensation. [85]

In 2014, the National Disability Council continued working on the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the national disability policy, with the participation of persons with disabilities. DAICMA is the institution responsible for the inclusion of provisions on assistance and comprehensive rehabilitation of mine/ERW/IED victims within the policy. [86] The National Disability Council’s national policy on disability and social inclusion (“Conpes 166”), to implement the disability law in line with the CRPD, was approved in December 2013. [87] DAICMA provided recommendations and actions to the policy. [88]

Colombia provided detailed updates on the progress and challenges for victim assistance at the Convention on Cluster Munitions intersessional meetings in Geneva in April 2014 and at the Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference in Maputo in June 2014, as well as through its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report submitted for calendar year 2014. [89]

While recognizing that important efforts are made through the implementation of the Victim’s Law, some NGOs reported that they felt coordination meetings were not effective or that there was a need for survivors to be more included in decision-making processes. [90] In a forum on survivors’ rights held in July 2015, a Ministry of Health and Social Protection representative said that there was a need to improve coordination between national, regional, and local institutions in the implementation of disability legislation and the Victim’s Laws. [91] The regional mechanisms were in some cases seen to be more effective than national ones. [92]

Survivor inclusion and participation

Following the adoption and implementation of the Victim’s Law (2011), mine/ERW survivors were invited to participate in the planning and provision of victim assistance through department-based transitional justice committees. In 2014, survivors and their representative organizations participated in these government-held meetings. [93] Some of them also participated in the monitoring of the National Mine/ERW Victim’s Plan. [94] However, their representation was not as broad as hoped, especially in national instances, and some organizations working with survivors identified the need to better prepare them to fulfill advocacy roles. [95]

During the year, the National Survivors Network participated in the National Committee for the Participation of Victims, where it presented requests regarding housing, pensions, socio-economic inclusion, and health. [96] Survivors were also represented at the Victim’s Unit until April 2015, but were not included in the National Intersectorial Commission for Mine Action (Comisión Intersectorial Nacional para la Acción Integral contra Minas Antipersonal, Cinamap), which is responsible for the elaboration of mine-related public policies. [97]

In 2014, DAICMA continued a pilot project (started in 2012) to strengthen the capacity of mine victim organizations, providing technical support to four survivor associations. [98] The Association of Mine Victims of San Carlos (ASOVIMASC, Antioquia), which was part of the project, received training and technical support and was able to share experience and transfer knowledge to other associations created in 2014–2015. ASOVIMASC could also receive interns from the National Apprenticeship Service (SENA). [99]

Survivor associations participated in subcommittees on Transitional Justice at the local and departmental level, strengthening communication between survivors and public institutions. [100] For example, in the subcommittee on the strengthening of victims’ organizations for transitional justice in Antioquia [101] and in victim’s participation committees in the municipalities of Cocorna, San Fransisco, and Medellin. [102] The CCCM raised awareness between mine victims, the provincial government of the department of Huila, and national entities through the Landmines Working Groups. [103] In July 2015, the National Network of Organizations of Mine/ERW Survivors and Victims with Disabilities ( Asociación Distrital de Sobrevivientes de Minas Antipersonal y Municiones sin Explotar, ADISMAM ) also participated in a forum on antipersonnel mines and survivors’ rights co-organized by the weekly magazine Semana , the Colombian Red Cross, the Spanish Red Cross, and the Spanish Cooperation Agency (AECID) in Bogota. [104]

Representatives of National Network of Organizations of Mine/ERW Survivors and Victims with Disabilities, represented the perspectives of mine/ERW survivors in the Colombian peace process national committee in 2014 and in the peace negotiations in Havana. [105] Their input to the negotiating delegations included requests for the r ecognition of victims, recognition of responsibility, satisfaction of victims’ rights, participation of the victims, the right to remedy, reconciliation, and humanitarian demining. [106]

The legal framework for the rights of victims of the armed conflict has been developed in parallel with the legal instruments for disability rights, resulting in a gap between the two frameworks, and therefore, mine/ERW victims are not fully participating in coordination mechanisms addressing disability issues. [107]

However, in 2014, mine/ERW survivors and their representative organizations were represented in the National Disability Council. [108] In the majority of cases, mine/ERW victims are not automatically included in committees on disability at the departmental level, but in Norte de Santander and Santander departments, mine/ERW survivors participated in these mechanisms. [109]

Many survivor associations and NGOs included mine/ERW survivors in the provision of victim assistance, such as data collection processes or training and awareness-raising, information and referral to services, and benefits. [110] The CCCM included survivors in assistance and access to rehabilitation projects with UNICEF support. [111]

Survivor associations also participated in defining and assessing needs. The Victim Association of the department of Norte de Santander held various meetings to evaluate and attend the victims’ needs, especially regarding legal counseling and income-generating projects. The association also led a workshop with children of victims to identify the issues they are facing. [112] The Victim Association of the department of Caqueta continued to hold meetings in which survivors and their families’ needs are discussed. The information collected was shared with national NGOs such as Paz y Democracia and the CCCM. [113]

Service accessibility and effectiveness

Since the entry into force of the Victim’s Law, health and rehabilitation services must be accessed through the national health system. The process caused considerable delays and discrepancies in the provision of assistance, since the institutions providing health services were sometimes unaware of the service coverage. [114] However, in March 2014, the Ministry of Health and Social Protection began to require that victims of armed conflict not covered by any insurance scheme be automatically included in the subsidized system. [115] Ultimately, the inclusion of survivors in the subsidized health system was reported to have become easier. [116] New protocols formulated and implemented by the Ministry of Health and Social Protection and the Victim’s Unit also reduced the delays for mine/ERW with disabilities identified in the Registry of Victims in accessing the Route of Attention. [117]

Despite increasing efforts regarding awareness and acknowledgment of the victims’ needs, current resources and structures could not address all the needs identified. Survivors face complex bureaucratic procedures to access benefits, which frequently cause them to abandon their claim. Gaps in the provision of health, rehabilitation, and psychosocial services remained prevalent. [118] For example, survivors still had to cover the cost of the mandatory physical evaluation, which is required to access the disability pension. [119] In addition, a lack of continuity was reported in the provision of rehabilitation services. [120] Survivors reported that the main barriers they face in accessing services, medicines, and specialized services are the costs of disability evaluations, the lack of psychological support and economic opportunities, the long distance they must travel to reach services, and issues in accessing compensation. [121] Frequent cancellation of medical appointments, limited availability of specialists, and health centers’ business hours overlapping with working schedules were also reported as problems by many survivors. [122] Access to, and the quality of, services of public institutions were dependent on support that humanitarian organizations provided, without which services were often delayed and inadequate. [123]

More consideration was given to gender- and age-sensitive assistance, and disability programs including mine/ERW survivors were promoted. [124] Efforts were also made to promote the Route of Attention processes at the local level, so survivors associations are better equipped to access them. [125]

In 2014, international cooperation funding was cut or significantly reduced, forcing some organizations to reduce their services, including rehabilitation services and prosthesis. [126]

Victim assistance activities [127]

Name of organization

Type of organization

Type of activity

Changes in quality/coverage of service in 2014

DAICMA

National government

Awareness-raising for governmental and non-governmental actors on available victim assistance efforts and how to access them; capacity-building for survivor associations

Ongoing

Ministry of Health and Social Protection

National government

Administration of the Solidarity and Guarantee Fund (FOSYGA) to cover rehabilitative care for victims of conflict, including mine/ERW survivors; emergency and continuing medical care regulated physical rehabilitation

Launched new psychosocial health program for armed conflict victims

Victim’s Unit

National government

Group therapy for registered victims; referrals for individuals needing individual psychological support; technical support to municipalities in the implementation of the Victim’s Law

Coverage spread to 20 departments; decrease in the number of victims who received administrative reparation

National Apprenticeship Service (SENA)

National government

Vocational training; training course for prosthetics and orthotics technicians

Ongoing

Medellin City Hall (Office of the Mayor)

City government

Psychosocial support and vocational training to survivors as part of its program for victims of conflict; coordination of municipal committee to improve access to victim assistance

Ongoing

ASUTAL

National NGO

Psychosocial support, humanitarian assistance, facilitation to access medical care and rehabilitation

Unknown

CCCM

National NGO

Legal advice; referrals to services; awareness-raising on survivors’ rights and advocacy; economic inclusion; mine risk education; survivor associations and local authorities capacity-building

Increased geographic coverage; decrease in number of beneficiaries, ongoing services’ quality

CIREC

National NGO

Physical rehabilitation, including mobile outreach to remote regions; social and economic inclusion through formation of survivors associations, peer support, income-generating projects, and capacity-building

Increased geographic coverage of mobile rehabilitation services; increased number of survivors assisted

Fundacion REI

National NGO

Physical rehabilitation and psychological support for mine/ERW survivors referred by HI and the ICRC

Increased geographic coverage within the department of Bolivar; offered more services

Pastoral Social

National NGO with link to international organizations

Psychosocial support, income-generating projects; transportation and accommodation to access services; advocacy

Ongoing

Colombianitos

National NGO

Support access to prosthesis replacement and rehabilitation services; psychosocial assistance; support access to health services for children victims of antipersonnel mine explosions

Decrease in the number of beneficiaries who received physical rehabilitation services

National Network of Organizations of Mine/ERW Survivors and Victims with Disabilities

National survivor network

Advocacy to increase access to benefits and opportunities for survivor participation

Increased geographical coverage with activities now in nine regions

HI

International NGO

Transportation, food, accommodation, and hygiene material to access health and rehabilitation services; training to health professionals and communities; raising awareness of survivors’ rights and available benefits in public institutions; formation of peer support groups; psychosocial assistance, with special attention to children and youths; income-generating projects; support to educational institutions to include survivors and increase physical accessibility; and inclusion of survivors in local government committees

Increased geographic coverage; increased focus on children and youth; greater ability to fill the gaps in rehabilitation services

Organization of American States (OAS)

International organization

Transportation and accommodation to access services; support for services not covered through government support or for people unable to register, including health and physical rehabilitation, and vocational training; psychological support; economic inclusion and survivor associations’ capacity-building activities with SENA

Ongoing

ICRC

International organization

Weapon-contamination, victim data-gathering, including mine/ERW casualties; materials and/or training support to eight physical rehabilitation centers and overall training program through SENA; emergency medical care and evacuation; accommodation, transportation, and food for survivors and family members to support access to services; covered cost of service for survivors unable to register for government support; micro-economic inclusion project; disseminated information on victims’ rights among communities and local authorities; improved protection of health services during armed conflict

Ongoing

Paz y Democracia

Regional NGO

Support access to rights and services; promote participation of survivors in processes created by the Victim’s Law; capacity-building of survivor associations; training of survivors and their associations on the Victim’s Law; transportation, food, and accommodation for victims to access health and rehabilitation services

Increased geographic coverage, increased number of survivors assisted, improved service quality

Norte de Santander Rehabilitation Center

Rehabilitation center

Provision of prosthesis and orthosis

Ongoing

Local survivor associations

Association of Mine Victims of San Carlos

San Carlos Municipality,Department of Antioquia

With support of various donors provides funds/services such as: prosthesis and its reparation, rehabilitation, training, and economic inclusion projects to survivors

Increased number of beneficiaries, extended economic inclusion project funded by OAS, greater capacity to counsel survivors in accessing their rights

Victim Association of Caquetá

Department of Caquetá

D ata collection, follow-up and support to access services for survivors and families, psychological support, training through SENA

Ongoing; reported increased socio-economic inclusion activities with the ICRC and UNDP in 2015

Emergency and ongoing medical care

Emergency medical response improved and delays in accessing specialized services were reduced in 2014. [128] Geographic coverage of general medical attention was also greater, although some areas remain isolated, as adequately equipped infrastructures are located in major urban centers such as Bogota or Medellin. [129]

In July 2015, the CCCM stated that in many cases it was difficult to safely evacuate civilian survivors from the site of the incident. Access to health centers was frequently limited because of long distances and the poor conditions of the road network. The organization also reported that when an accident occurs, people who accompany the survivor to the emergency center are left unattended, as they are not considered in the Route of Attention designed by the government. [130] The CCCM also reported that survivors in need of medical consultation with specialists could wait between three and six months to get an appointment. [131]

In 2014, in the municipality of Cocorna (department of Antioquia), the Municipal Hospital signed an agreement with the local survivor association to help the survivors get medical appointments. The association will in exchange collect data for the hospital’s satisfaction survey. [132]

In Norte de Santander department, the CCCM provided accompaniment in obtaining humanitarian emergency aid for victims. [133]

The ICRC provided first-aid courses in conflict/violence-affected communities and to health personnel and weapon bearers. It also provided medical materials nearly 40 health facilities, including those used to treat weapon-wounded patients and made infrastructural upgrades at four healthposts . [134]

Physical rehabilitation, including prosthetics

Some organizations providing physical rehabilitation or working to facilitate access to such services for mine survivors reported an increase in the number of beneficiaries or geographic coverage ( see table above ).

Several organizations noted that bureaucratic delays or long wait lists meant that many survivors could be waiting up to a year for initial consultation and up to eight months more to get the prosthesis fitted. Survivors in need are eligible for a new prosthesis every five years, but many require them to be changed more frequently. [135] There was also a lack of continuity in the provision of rehabilitation services. [136] The CCCM reported reduced access to prosthesis due to a decrease in international cooperation funding. [137] Some organizations working with survivors noted general improvement in the provision of physical rehabilitation services. [138] HI reported improvements in the quality of prosthesis, mainly due to international cooperation support, while it continued to need to fill gaps in the provision of health and rehabilitation services. [139]

There were significant gaps in assistance for persons with hearing and sight impairments due to high costs and limited availability of devices and services. [140]

In 2014, the Ministry of Health and Social Protection and the ICRC continued to work with physical rehabilitation providers to improve the quality of care in order to meet national standards established in 2010; the deadline for service providers to meet these standards and continue their operations was originally set for December 2013, but revisions to the law extended this deadline into 2014. [141]

The ICRC also continued to work with the two existing training institutions for specialized rehabilitation training at SENA in Bogota and at the TIMDO Institute in Cali, and included“management of amputees” in the physiotherapy curricula. [142]

The principal partners of the ICRC remained the Hospital Universitario del Valle and Ortopédica Américana in Cali. The ICRC decided to halt its collaboration with the Centro Cardio-neuromuscular of Cucuta in September 2014, due to a recurrent lack of provincial authority involvement. The ICRC also provided material support for the Centro Integral de Rehabilitación de Colombia (CIREC) in Bogotá and the Fundación REI para la Rehabilitación Integral in Cartagena. [143]

In 2014, the OAS continued to work with CIREC to provide physical rehabilitation support for mine/ERW survivors, and concluded physical rehabilitation support agreements with CIREC and the Colombian Red Cross for the departments of Antioquia and Bolivar. [144]

Economic inclusion

In 2013, several economic benefits for mine/ERW victims were added to the Victim’s Law. [145] At the end of 2014, 269 mine/ERW survivors were in the process of obtaining reparations under the law’s provisions. [146] Bureaucratic procedures to access pensions were reduced for survivors whose disability was registered as more than 50%. The majority of survivors had difficulties in accessing such benefits, despite the fact that the Constitutional Court had acknowledged the right to a pension through various rulings. [147]

The Victim’s Unit led a workshop subcommittee of reparation to improve understanding and coordination. The Victim’s Unit also conducted a series of interviews at the national level to map ongoing projects, existing agreements, and available resources for the economic inclusion of the victims of the armed conflict. [148]

Organizations of survivors or those working with survivors reported a lack of assistance from the government in gaining employment or starting income-generating projects. Local, departmental, and national programs are seen as limited, unsustainable, and inadequate in regards to the needs and characteristics of the beneficiaries, and do not include previous or ongoing training for participants. [149]

Organizations of survivors or those working with survivors also reported insufficient access to basic, technical, and professional education to cover the needs of all victims, especially when they have a visual impairment, which leads to more difficulties to enter the labor market and/or pursue their education at the university level. Teachers are seen as unprepared to provide inclusive education and improvements in educational institutions as limited. [150] In 2014, six departmental governments included financial resources for income-generating projects for survivors in their budgets for implementing mine action at the departmental level, following advocacy efforts by local members of the national survivor network. [151] However, there is no national policy regarding educational inclusion of mine\ERW survivors. [152]

In 2014, UNDP signed an agreement with the Ministry of Labor to develop an employment policy as the basis for an income-generation initiatives specifically designed for victims of violence. [153] UNDP also implemented an economic-inclusion project in the department of Putumayo in 2014. [154]

The ICRC’s economic-inclusion project for internally displaced persons was extended in 2014 to include weapon contamination victims. The project includes vocational training by SENA and employment opportunities through agreements with public and private institutions in 10 cities. [155]

The ICRC also initiated at the end of the year a socio-economic reintegration project under the management of the Economic Security Department for those receiving physical rehabilitation services with the assistance of the ICRC. [156]

In 2014, the OAS developed vocational training for survivor associations. Certificates of completion were provided to survivor members of the association AVAMIGA, of Granada municipality in the Antioquia department. [157] The OAS continued supporting survivors to pursue studies, vocational, technical, and secondary undergraduate studies by covering the costs of transportation, housing, food, and school materials. [158]

The OAS also supported six socio-economic inclusion projects through technical and financial support to mine victims associations in the departments of Antioquia, Bolivar, and Santander. [159]

The CCCM started supported income-generating projects for mine/ERW/IED survivors through an agreement with HI. [160] The CCCM also provided legal counseling for accessing victims’ rights. As of 2014, five legal procedures had also been initiated in representative cases and for access to socio-economic reintegration in the department of Norte de Santander. [161]

Social inclusion

Due to the Victim’s Law being implemented, positive changes in social inclusion were being noticed. However, measures for social inclusion required strengthening. [162] Programs or projects aimed at the social inclusion of victims as well as services that could enable it (for example, access to employment or income-generating initiatives) are limited to major urban centers, while the majority of mine/ERW survivors are located in rural and remote areas. [163]

A pilot Social Reconstruction Strategy ( Estrategia de Reconstrucción del Tejido Social- Entrelazando) was launched by the Victim’s Unit. Members of the Victim’s Unit identify group leaders in affected communities, who are then supported to lead community rehabilitation efforts. [164] Twenty individuals were selected in order to identify bottlenecks and difficulties in accessing the comprehensive psychological, physical, and social rehabilitation services. [165]

In 2014, the OAS supported the participation of two survivors in the“Nike Run,” which was among the activities organized by DAICMA as part of its strategy“More Sport, less Mines.” The strategy aims at raising awareness on the threat posed by antipersonnel mines and takes place under the UN-led campaign“Lend your Leg.” The OAS also renewed its support to survivors participating as coaches or counsellors in sports programs for people with cognitive disability offered by FIDES and in CIREC’s“Inclusive Scuba Diving” program for people with disabilities and mine survivors. Survivors with visual impairments also participated in various sport activities. [166]

Social inclusion projects for persons with disabilities through the use of information and communications technology included the Relay Center, Connecting Senses, Movies for All, and Convertic. [167]

Psychological support, including peer support

Two mental health programs were launched by the government in 2013 under the Victim’s Law. The Ministry of Health and Social Protection launched the“Program for Psycho-social and Comprehensive Health of Victims” (“Programa de Atención Psicosocial y Salud Integral a Víctimas,” PAPSIVI), implemented through national and local actors (such as health centers) to assess the psychosocial needs of individuals, families, and communities, affected by armed conflict, including mine/ERW victims. [168] The program was designed in consultation with armed conflict victims, including mine/ERW victims. [169] As part of the program, the Ministry of Health and Social Protection also began providing a virtual course in psychosocial support for armed conflict victims for health professionals throughout Colombia. [170] In 2014, 82,156 victims of the armed conflict, among which 88 were mine/ERW survivors, received psychosocial assistance and over 2000 professionals were trained through this program. [171]

The second program, launched by the Victim’s Unit, provided group therapy to registered armed conflict victims in communities throughout Colombia and provided referrals to the Ministry of Health and Social Protection for victims in need of individualized care. [172] The program seeks to promote emotional recovery from the victims’ own experience. In 2014, 47 mine/ERW survivors participated in this program. [173]

While some NGOs working with survivors reported good and specialized provision of psychological services for mine/ERW survivors, [174] the CCCM reported that at the municipal level, psychosocial assistance programs were not implemented optimally due to insufficient resources and will. [175] Local psychological support programs for victims of the armed conflict did not cover rural areas, where the majority of mine/ERW survivors are located, and did not attend all their needs. In early 2014, victims were able to provide input through the national coordination mechanism for the Victim’s Law on how to adjust the program and improve its impact. [176]

Public psychological support services are not available in the majority of the municipalities where survivors live or are only provided in the period immediately following the accident, while the survivors are hospitalized. [177] The Colombian Red Cross reported a general lack of psychosocial support, especially for survivors’ family members. [178]

HI provided training in psychological counseling and group support to associations of survivors in several municipalities in 2014. [179] The CCCM also provided psychosocial support to survivors in the department of Sucre. [180]

Laws and policies

Law 1618, which guarantees the rights of persons with disabilities in line with the CRPD, was approved in February 2013. [181] To promote the participation of armed conflict victims in the implementation of the Victim’s Law, Resolution 0388 adopted the Protocol for the Effective Participation of Armed Conflict Victims on 10 May 2013. Both pieces of legislation held great potential to protect the rights of mine/ERW victims as armed conflict victims and as persons with disabilities. [182] Legislation prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment, education, access to public buildings, air travel and other transportation, access to healthcare, or the provision of other state services, but some NGOs reported that these laws were seldom enforced. [183]

In 2015, statutory law 1751 on health was adopted, Article 11 of which defines persons with disabilities as subject to special protection. [184] In March 2015, legislation was adopted to guarantee access to and the quality of appropriate rehabilitation services for persons with disabilities by the institutions providing health services. [185]

In 2014, recommendations on the national policy on disability and social inclusion (“Conpes 166”) were developed. The policy, approved in December 2013, aims at the implementation of Colombia’s disability law in line with the CRPD. The recommendations mainly addressed the inclusion of CRPD’s and national norms on disability principles in the elaboration of departmental and municipal Route of Attention for mine/ERW/IED victims, specifying the characteristics of a comprehensive rehabilitation. [186] In 2014, institutions participating in the National Disability System developed and finalized a land management guide on disability for governors and mayors of the country as a way to implement the disability policy at regional and local levels. [187]

In December 2014, the Victim’s Unit adopted Resolution 0848, establishing reparation modalities for personal injuries and enabling access to reparations for mine/ERW victims. [188] In 2014, through the Victim’s Unit social reconstruction strategy Entrelazando, improvements were noted in the application of collective reparation measures as set out in the Victim’s Law to compensate the victims of armed conflict. [189]

In 2014 and into 2015, various decisions by the State Council, the highest tribunal to rule on conflicts between citizens and the State, ordered direct reparations to mine/ERW victims based on the State’s obligation to comply with its responsibilities, including under the Mine Ban Treaty. [190] Various decisions by the Constitutional Court also promulgated access to disability pensions to victims of armed conflict. Now survivors whose disability is qualified as 50% or more can access this pension even if they never contributed to the pension system. [191]

In 2014, a case of coca eradicators affected by antipersonnel mines in the department of Caldas was brought to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights in order to obtain reparations for the survivors. [192]

Little to no improvements in physical accessibility were identified in Colombia in 2014. In 2013, the State Council ordered all public offices to make facilities accessible to persons with disabilities and asked public officials and municipalities to include requirements for accessibility when granting licenses for construction and occupancy. Law 1618 established a deadline of 27 February 2015 for public offices to comply with the new accessibility requirements, and stipulates that the National Disability Council is responsible for monitoring compliance. As of July 2014, no information was available on how many public offices and facilities had complied with the order. During the year the municipal government of Bogota issued Decree 324, which adopted measures to guarantee effective access for persons with disabilities to the integrated public transportation.

In most cases, no discrimination based on ethnicity, nature of disability, civil or military status, etc. was reported in the provision of assistance to survivors and efforts were made to provide gender- and age-sensitive assistance. [193] However, survivors reported often being erroneously referred to as internally displaced persons, which caused additional victimization. [194] Discrimination in administrative procedures was reported, as many survivors have difficulties complying with all the requisites to access their benefits due to being persons with disabilities. [195]



[1] Department for Comprehensive Action Against Antipersonnel Mines (Dirección para la Acción Integral contra Minas Antipersonal, DAICMA)’s database—updated to 30 April 2015, sent by Camilo Serna, Operational Coordinator, Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines (Campaña Colombiana Contra Minas, CCCM), 11 June 2015; and email from Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 7 December 2015.

[2] The casualty total for 2013 was updated based on data available as of April 2014. By 6 December 2015, PAICMA had identified 265 casualties in 2013, 255 due to mines and 10 due to ERW. Email from Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 7 December 2015

[3] Formerly Presidential Program for Comprehensive Action Against Antipersonnel Mines (PAICMA), renamed under Decree No. 1649, 2 September 2014; Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2014), Form A. DAICMA’s role is the same as PAICMA’s, except DAICMA assists the Minister Counseller of Post-Conflict, Human Rights and Security and the National Government in the planning and coordination of mine-related activities, while PAICMA was acting under the govern of the Vice-President.

[4] Nearly all explosives that are victim-activated and that can be triggered by an individual are referred to as antipersonnel mines in Colombia. However, these casualties are not caused by industrially-produced antipersonnel mines, but rather by victim-activated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that act like antipersonnel landmines and ERW. ICRC,“Weapon contamination programming Colombia Activities and results achieved in 2010,” Bogota, undated, p. 2, document provided to the Monitor by email from Matthieu Laruelle, Regional Advisor for Latin America, Weapon Contamination Program, ICRC, 20 April 2011.

[5] Of the 187 military casualties, 31 people were killed and 156 were injured. DAICMA does not identify any casualties among non-state armed groups.

[6] Civilians made up 37% of all casualties in 2011, 34% in 2010, and 41% of all casualties in 2009 and 2008.

[7] The total of 32 women casualties in 2012 was significantly higher than the number of casualties among women in other recent years. There were 12 women casualties in 2010 and 22 in 2011.

[8] DAICMA’s database—updated to April 30 2015, sent by Camilo Serna, CCCM, 11 June 2015.

[9] Interview with Daniel Avila, Director, DAICMA, in Geneva, 29 May 2013.

[10] In 2011, DAICMA initiated a process to access information on members of the armed forces who were involved in mine incidents during coca eradication. In 2012, the Center for Information on Antiexplosives and Arms Tracking (Centro de Información de Antiexplosivos y Rastreo de Armas, CIARA) within the armed forces was designated as the focal point to facilitate the exchange of information with DAICMA. However, as of August 2015, DAICMA still had not received casualty information with sufficient detail to be of use. Responses to Monitor questionnaire by DAICMA, sent via email by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015; by Oscar Ivan Ortiz Bohorquez, DAICMA, 2 May 2014; by Diana Rocío Sorzano Romero, DAICMA, 27 March 2013; and by Sonia Matilde Eljach Polo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 19 April 2012.

[11] DAICMA,“Eradicator Victims by Department and by Year” (“Victimas Erradicadores por Departamento y Año”), undated, provided by email from Milton Fernando García Lozano, Information Management, DAICMA, 13 September 2011; and responses to Monitor questionnaire by Sonia Matilde Eljach Polo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 19 April 2012; by DAICMA, sent via email by Diana Rocío Sorzano Romero, DAICMA, 27 March 2013; and by Oscar Ivan Ortiz Bohorquez, DAICMA, 2 May 2014. DAICMA also reported 355 civilian casualties (40 killed, 315 injured) were coca eradicators between 2006 and April 2015. DAICMA’s database—updated to April 30 2015, sent by Camilo Serna, CCCM, 11 June 2015.

[12] DAICMA’s database—updated to April 30 2015, sent by Camilo Serna, CCCM, 11 June 2015; and email from Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 7 December 2015.

[13] See previous Colombia country profiles available on the Monitor website .

[14] While DAICMA data covers a range from 1982 through 2014, just two casualties occurred prior to 1990.

[15] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, Counsellor, DAICMA, 2 September 2015; and email from Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 7 December 2015.

[16] Inter-American Court of Human Rights,“Case: Massacre of Santo Domingo vs. Colombia Sentence of 30 November 2012,” undated.

[17] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[18] See previous Colombia country profiles available on the Monitor website .

[19] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Camilo Serna, CCCM, 9 July 2015.

[20] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Program Coordinator, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI, 22 March 2015; and by Ingrid Verónica Gaitán, OAS, 8 May 2015.

[21] DAICMA,“Asistencia a Víctimas” (“Victim Assistance”), undated.

[22] ICRC Physical Rehabilitation Programme (PRP),“Annual Report 2014,” Geneva, 2015.

[23] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015; and by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015.

[24] Ministry of Information Technology and Communication (MinTIC), Law 759 of 2002, Article 13 (adopted 25 July 2002), Official Diary No. 44.883, 30 July 2002.

[25] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2014), Form C.

[26] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by DAICMA, sent via email by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DACIMA, 26 August 2015; and by Oscar Ivan Ortiz Bohorquez, DAICMA, 2 May 2014.

[27] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Duyerney Pabón González, Assistant, Weapons Contamination Department, ICRC, 25 May 2015.

[28] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas Reyes, Operational Coordinator, HI, 22 May 2015.

[29] ICRC PRP“Annual Report 2014,” Geneva, 2015.

[30] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[31] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Camilo Serna, CCCM, 9 July 2015.

[32] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[33] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Manager, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[34] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[35] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Ingrid Verónica Gaitán, Victim Assistance Coordinator, AICMA-CO/OAS, 8 May 2015.

[36] Email from Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 7 December 2015.

[37] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, Victim Assistance Coordinator, CCCM, 20 July 2015; by Johana Huertas Reyes, Operational Coordinator, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; by Alejandro Rumie, Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) Coordinator, and Vanessa Cortes, Legal Assistance Officer, Fundación REI, 21 March 2014; by Martha Cardona Toro, Outreach Coordinator, CIREC, 20 March 2014; by Esperanza Giraldo, Manager, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015; by Duyerney Pabón González, Assistant, Weapons Contamination Department, ICRC, 25 May 2015; and by Ana Milena Londoño P., Association of Mine Victims of San Carlos (ASOVIMASC), 3 May 2015.

[38] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015.

[39] Email from Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 7 December 2015.

[40] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015.

[41] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015; and MÉTODO CCCM Project’s website, undated.

[42]“Project of implementation and strengthening of actions that mitigate the problem of weapons prohibited or regulated by IHL in Colombia,” Final Report, CCCM, 2014, p. 27.

[43] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[44] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[45] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI, 22 May 2015; by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015; by Ingrid Verónica Gaitán, OAS, 8 May 2015; and by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[46] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI, 22 May 2015; by Ana Milena Londoño, CCCM Volunteer in San Carlos, 3 May 2015; by Duyerney Pabón González, ICRC, 25 May 2015; by Harol Wilson Muñoz, Victim Association of Caqueta, 15 June 2015; and by Reinel Barbosa, National Coordinator, District Association of Landmine Survivors (ADISMAM), 9 September 2015.

[47] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 2 September 2015.

[48] Email from Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 7 December 2015.

[49] Ibid., 26 August 2015.

[50] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[51] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[52] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Ingrid Verónica Gaitán, AICMA-CO/OAS, 8 May 2015.

[53] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Duyerney Pabón González, ICRC, 25 May 2015.

[54] Sistema Nacional de Vigilancia en Salud Pública (SIVIGILIA), Formato“Lesiones por artefactos explosivos (polo y minas antipersonal)” (National Public Health Monitoring System, Form“Injury caused by explosive artifact (gunpowder or antipersonnel mines)”).

[55] Ibid.; and statement of Colombia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, 24 June 2014.

[56] Document CONPES Social 166, Política Pública Nacional de Discapacidad e Inclusión Social (National Public Policy on Disability and Social Inclusion), Bogotá, 9 December 2013, p. 11.

[57] ICRC PRP“Annual Report 2014,” Geneva, 2015.

[58] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid., 2 September 2015.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[63] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Harol Wilson Muñoz, 15 June 2015; and by Camilo Serna, CCCM, 9 July 2015.

[64] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 2 September 2015.

[65] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2014), Form J.

[66] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 2 September 2015.

[67] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015; and by Mileyni Ramirez, President, Victims Association of Norte de Santander, 27 April 2015.

[68] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[69] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015, and 2 September 2015.

[70] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[71] DAICMA,“Colombia presenta en Maputo, Mozambique la Guía para la Asistencia de niños, niñas y adolescentes víctimas de minas antipersona” (“Colombia presents in Maputo, Mozambique the Guide for the Assistance of boys, girls and adolescents victims of antipersonnel mines”), 26 June 2014.

[72] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[73] Responses to Monitor questionnaire Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and by Duyerney Pabón González, ICRC, 25 May 2015.

[74] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Duyerney Pabón González, ICRC, 25 May 2015.

[75]“Project of implementation and strengthening of actions that mitigate the problem of weapons prohibited or regulated by IHL in Colombia,” Final Report, CCCM, 2014, pp. 14–20.

[76] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015; by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[79] Adopted under Decree 1725, 12 August 2012.

[80] National Planning Department,“Documento CONPES 3726,” 30 May 2012.

[81] Response to Monitor questionnaire by DAICMA, sent via email by Diana Rocío Sorzano Romero, DAICMA, 27 March 2013.

[82] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015.

[83] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015.

[84] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; by Ana Milena Londoño P., AVIMASC, 3 May 2015; and by Harol Wilson Muñoz, Victim Association Caqueta, 15 June 2015.

[85] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2013), Form J; and response to Monitor questionnaire by DAICMA, sent by Oscar Ivan Ortiz Bohorquez, DAICMA, 2 May 2014.

[86] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2014), Form J.

[87] National Council of Economic and Social Policy,“Documento Conpes Social 166: POLÍTICA PÚBLICA NACIONAL DE DISCAPACIDAD E INCLUSIÓN SOCIAL” (“Conpes Social Document 166: National Public Policy on Disability and Social Inclusion”), Bogota, 9 December 2013.

[88] Response to Monitor questionnaire by DAICMA, sent by Oscar Ivan Ortiz Bohorquez, DAICMA, 2 May 2014.

[89] Statement of Colombia, Convention on Cluster Munition Working Group on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 9 April 2014; statement of Colombia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014; and Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2014), Form J.

[90] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and by Reinel Barbosa, ADISMAM, 9 September 2015.

[91]Foro: Minas antipersonales y derechos de los sobrevivientes en Colombia, un reto del presente” (“Forum: Antipersonnel mines and survivors’ rights in Colombia, a challenge of today”), Bogota, 8 July 2015.

[92] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Duyerney Pabón González, ICRC, 25 May 2015.

[93] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015; and by Mileyni Ramirez, Victim Association of Norte de Santander, 27 April 2015.

[94] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015.

[95] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015;“Foro: Minas antipersonales y derechos de los sobrevivientes en Colombia, un reto del presente” (“Forum: Antipersonnel mines and survivors’ rights in Colombia, a challenge of today”), Bogota, 8 July 2015.

[96] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estala Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[97] Ibid.

[98] Response to Monitor questionnaire by DAICMA, sent by Oscar Ivan Ortiz Bohorquez, DAICMA, 2 May 2014.

[99] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015.

[100] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Duyerney Pabón González, ICRC, 25 May 2015.

[101] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[102] Ibid.

[103]“Project of implementation and strengthening of actions that mitigate the problem of weapons prohibited or regulated by IHL in Colombia,” Final Report, CCCM, 2014, p. 4.

[104]Foro: Minas antipersonales y derechos de los sobrevivientes en Colombia, un reto del presente” (“Forum: Antipersonnel mines and survivors’ rights in Colombia, a challenge of today”), Bogota, 8 July 2015.

[105] Email from Reinel Barbosa Cajica, Coordinator, Red Nacional de organizaciones de sobrevivientes de MAP, MUSE, AEI y personas víctimas con discapacidad (ADISMAM), 5 October 2014.

[106]“Project of implementation and strengthening of actions that mitigate the problem of weapons prohibited or regulated by IHL in Colombia,” Final Report, CCCM, 2014, p. 29.

 

[108] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015; and by Mileyni Ramirez, Victim Association of Norte de Santander, 27 April 2015.

[109] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Mileyni Ramirez, Victim Association of Norte de Santander, 27 April 2015; and by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[110] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Mileyni Ramirez, Victim Association of Norte de Santander, 27 April 2015; by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015; and by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[111] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[112] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Mileyni Ramirez, Victim Association of the Department of Norte de Santander, 29 April 2015.

[113] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Harol Wilson Muñoz, President, Victim Association of Caqueta, 15 June 2015.

[114] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertes Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015.

[115] Circular 00016 of 22 March 2014; and response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[116] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[117] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 2 September 2015.

[118] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; and by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[119]Foro: Minas antipersonales y derechos de los sobrevivientes en Colombia, un reto del presente” (“Forum: Antipersonnel mines and survivors’ rights in Colombia, a challenge of today”), Bogota, 8 July 2015.

[120] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertes Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015.

[121]La Ley de Víctimas se queda corta con las de minas” (“Victim’s Law falls short in attending mine victims”), La Silla Vacía , 23 June 2015; and response to Monitor questionnaire by Reinel Barbosa, ADISMAM, 9 September 2015.

[122] Avances del Marco Lógica (Logical Framework Progress), HI, sent 9 July 2015.

[123] Ibid.

[124] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertes Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015.

[125] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Ana Milena Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015.

[126] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertes Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Ingrid Verónica Gaitán, OAS, 8 May 2015; and by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[127] Victim’s Unit,“Informe de gestión del Subcomité Técnico de Rehabilitación año 2013” (“Management Report of the Technical Subcommittee for Rehabilitation Year 2013”), p. 4; responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 22 June 2015; by DAICMA, sent by Oscar Ivan Ortiz Bohorquez, DAICMA, 2 May 2014; by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 2 September 2015; by Alejandro Rumie, and Vanessa Cortes, Fundación REI, 21 March 2014; by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; by Martha Cardona Toro, CIREC, 20 March 2014; by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 30 April 2014; by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015; by Ingrid Verónica Gaitán, OAS, 8 May 2015; by Liliana Mendoza, Norte de Santander Rehabilitation Center, 29 April 2015; by Ana Mileyna Londoño, ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015; by Harol Wilson Muñoz, Victim Association Caqueta, 15 June 2015; and by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015; ICRC PRP,“Annual Report 2014,” Geneva, 2015; and ICRC,“Annual Report 2013,” Geneva, May 2014, p. 421.

[128] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; and by Johana Huertes Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015.

[129] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015; by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015; by Harol Wilson Muñoz, Victim Association Caqueta, 15 June 2015; and by Reinel Barbosa, ADISMAM, 9 September 2015.

[130]Foro: Minas antipersonales y derechos de los sobrevivientes en Colombia, un reto del presente” (“During a forum on survivors’ rights in Bogota. Forum: Antipersonnel mines and survivors’ rights in Colombia, a challenge of today”), Bogota, 8 July 2015.

[131] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[132] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[133]“Project of implementation and strengthening of actions that mitigate the problem of weapons prohibited or regulated by IHL in Colombia,” Final Report, CCCM, 2014, p. 5.

[134] ICRC“Annual Report 2014 – Colombia,” Geneva, May 2015, pp. 421–422.

[135]“Project of implementation and strengthening of actions that mitigate the problem of weapons prohibited or regulated by IHL in Colombia,” Final Report, CCCM, 2014, p. 22.

[136] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Johana Huertes Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and by Harol Wilson Muñoz, Victim Association Caqueta, 15 June 2015.

[137] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[138] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015; and by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015.

[139] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertes Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and Avances del Marco Lógico (Logical Framework Progress), HI, sent 9 July 2015.

[140] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[141] ICRC PRP,“Annual Report 2013,” Geneva, 2014; and ICRC PRP“Annual Report 2014,” Geneva, 2015.

[142] ICRC PRP“Annual Report 2014,” Geneva, 2015.

[143] Ibid.

[144] Informe Anual 2014 del Programa de Acción Integral contra las Minas Antipersonal en Colombia ( Annual Report 2014, Mine Action Program in Colombia), OAS, sent 9 July 2015.

[145] Response to Monitor questionnaire by DAICMA, sent by Oscar Ivan Ortiz Bohorquez, DAICMA, 2 May 2014.

[146] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[147] Email from Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015;“Foro: Minas antipersonales y derechos de los sobrevivientes en Colombia, un reto del presente” (“Forum: Antipersonnel mines and survivors’ rights in Colombia, a challenge of today”), Bogota, 8 July 2015.

[148] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 2 September 2015.

[149] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; and by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[150] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[151] Email from Reinel Barbosa Cajica, Red Nacional de organizaciones de sobrevivientes de MAP, MUSE, AEI y personas víctimas con discapacidad (ADISMAM), 5 October 2014.

[152] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[153] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[154] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[155] The cities are: Bello, Bogotá, Buenaventura, Bucaramanga, Cali, Cúcuta, Florencia, Popayán, Puerto Asís, and Pasto. Response to Monitor questionnaire by Duyerney Pabón González, ICRC, 25 May 2015.

[156] ICRC PRP,“Annual Report 2014,” Geneva, 2015.

[157] Informe Anual 2014 del Programa de Acción Integral contra las Minas Antipersonal en Colombia ( Annual Report 2014, Mine Action Program in Colombia), OAS, sent 9 July 2015.

[158] Ibid .

[159] Ibid.; responses to Monitor questionnaire by Ingrid Verónica Gaitán, OAS, 8 May 2015; and by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015; and email, 27 June 2015.

[160] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[161]“Project of implementation and strengthening of actions that mitigate the problem of weapons prohibited or regulated by IHL in Colombia,” Final Report, CCCM, 2014.

[162] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015.

[163] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and by Esperanza Giraldo, az y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[164] Wesley Tomaselli,“Healing Colombia’s Scars of War,” OZY , 21 November 2014; and response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[165] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[166] Informe Anual 2014 del Programa de Acción Integral contra las Minas Antipersonal en Colombia ( Annual Report 2014, Mine Action Program in Colombia), OAS, sent 9 July 2015.

[167] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[168] PAPSIVI website, ¿Qué es?, undated.

[169] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 30 April 2014.

[170] Letter from Susanna Helfer-Vogel, Ministry of Health and Social Protection, 25 February 2014, directed to Daniel Avila, DAICMA.

[171] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 25 August 2015, and 2 September 2015.

[172] Response to Monitor questionnaire by DAICMA, sent by Oscar Ivan Ortiz Bohorquez, DAICMA, 2 May 2014.

[173] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 25 August 2015.

[174] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015; and by Mileyni Ramirez, Victims Association of Norte de Santander, 27 April 2015.

[175] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[176] Ibid., 30 April 2014.

[177] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertes Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and by Esperanza Giraldo, Paz y Democracia, 28 April 2015.

[178]Foro: Minas antipersonales y derechos de los sobrevivientes en Colombia, un reto del presente” (“Forum: Antipersonnel mines and survivors’ rights in Colombia, a challenge of today”), Bogota, 8 July 2015.

[179] The municipalities where training was provided include: San Carlos, San Luis, San Rafael, Granada, and Cocorná. Response to Monitor questionnaire by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015; and email, 27 June 2015.

[180]“Project of implementation and strengthening of actions that mitigate the problem of weapons prohibited or regulated by IHL in Colombia,” Final Report, CCCM, 2014, p. 4.

[181]“Ley 1618: Por Medio de la Cual se Establecen las Disposiciones para Garantizar el Pleno Ejercicio de los Derechos de las Personas con Disacapacidad” (“Law 1618: Which Establishes the Regulations to Guarantee the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”), 27 February 2013.

[182] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 30 April 2014; by DAICMA, sent by Oscar Ivan Ortiz Bohorquez, DAICMA, 2 May 2014; and by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianito, 24 April 2015.

[183] United States Department of State,“Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in 2014 - Colombia, ” Washington, DC, 25 June 2015, p. 45.

[184] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[185] Circular 010 of March 2015; and response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[186] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2014), Form J.

[187] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[188] Ibid.

[189] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Johana Huertas Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; and by Lucy Johana Salgado Sanchez, DAICMA, 26 August 2015.

[190] Case file No. 050012331000201100493 01 (49851), 15 July 2014, and No. 760012331000201000171-01 (50637), 20 August 2014, 4 th Prosecutor Delegate before the State Council; Case file No. 680012315000199901505 01 (31412), 1 June 2015, State Council 3rd Section; and No. 28.417, 22 January 2014, Administrative Chamber of the State Council; and email from Angélica Suárez Mendoza, Lawyer, CCCM, 11 June 2015.

[191] Case file No T-469/13, undated, and T921/14, 1 December 2014, Constitutional Court; responses to Monitor questionnaire by Duyerney Pabón González, ICRC, 25 May 2015; and by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.

[192]“Project of implementation and strengthening of actions that mitigate the problem of weapons prohibited or regulated by IHL in Colombia,” Final Report, CCCM, 2014, pp. 9–10.

[193] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Claudia Patricia Bernal, Colombianitos, 24 April 2015; by Johana Huerte Reyes, HI Colombia, 22 May 2015; by Ana Milena Londoño P., ASOVIMASC, 3 May 2015; and by Harol Wilson Muñoz, Victim Association Caqueta, 15 June 2015.

[194] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Mileyni Ramirez, Victim Association of Norte de Santander, 27 April 2015.

[195] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Luz Estela Navas, CCCM, 20 July 2015.


Support for Mine Action

Last updated: 03 November 2015

In 2014, the Republic of Colombia received US$11.5 million of international assistance from 11 donors. The largest contribution was provided by the United States (US) and accounted for 67% of all international assistance.[1]

Of the total international contribution, the majority went toward clearance (58%), victim assistance (21%), and capacity-building (11%). Advocacy and risk education represented respectively 4% and 1% of all support. The remaining 6% was not disaggregated by the donors. Most of the funding for clearance was provided by the US to Halo Trust and to the Colombian Army through the Organization of American States.

In June 2015, the EU announced it would contribute €5 million ($5.6 million) to support the FARC-Colombian military humanitarian demining pilot project.[2]

In April 2015, the US announced it would increase its support for humanitarian demining in Colombia by $5 million over the next two years.[3]

International contributions: 2014[4]

Donor

Sector

Amount (national currency)

Amount ($)

US

Various

$7,765,000

7,765,000

Canada

Victim assistance

C$1,108,834

1,004,106

Spain

Victim assistance

€742,500

987,302

Sweden

Various

SEK4,000,000

583,294

Norway

Advocacy

NOK2,000,000

317,617

Italy

Clearance and victim assistance

€210,000

279,237

Germany

Victim assistance

€150,000

199,455

Belgium

Victim assistance

€130,000

172,861

EU

Risk education

€66,133

87,937

Switzerland

Victim assistance and risk education

CHF78,251

85,548

South Korea

Various

$49,900

49,900

Total

 

 

11,532,257

 

From 2010 to 2013, international contributions to Colombia averaged approximately $13 million per year. Funding of just $7.3 million in 2014 represents a decrease of 11% from the previous year.

In 2014, Colombia contributed COP3.578 billion ($1,790,773) to support the Presidential Program for Mine Action (Programa Presidencial para la Acción Integral contra Minas Antipersonal, PAICMA).[5] Since 2010, the government of Colombia contributed almost $20 million to its mine action program, or 23% of its total mine action budget.

Summary of contributions in 2010–2014[6]

Year

National contributions

($)

International contributions

($)

Total contributions

($)

2014

1,790,773

11,532,257

13,323,030

2013

1,645,000

13,025,839

14,670,839

2012

2,444,002

15,568,519

18,012,521

2011

9,535,200

11,088,975

20,624,175

2010

3,869,000

12,122,933

15,991,933

Total

19,283,975

63,338,841

82,622,816

 



[1] Belgium Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, Form J, May 2015; Canada Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, Form J, 30 April 2015; email from Jérôme Legrand, Policy Officer, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Conventional Weapons and Space Division (K1), European External Action Service (EEAS), 11 June 2015; Germany Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, Form J, 16 March 2015; Italy Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 Report, Form I, 3 April 2015; response to Monitor questionnaire by Ingrid Schoyen, Senior Adviser, Section for Humanitarian Affairs, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 18 May 2015; UNMAS, Annual Report 2014, September 2015, p. 22; Spain Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, Form J, April 2015; Sweden Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 Report, Form I, 28 April 2015; Switzerland Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 Report, 29 April 2015; and US Department of State, US Department of State, “To Walk the Earth in Safety – 2015,” 2 November 2015. 

[2] European Commission, “The EU takes further steps in favour of peace in Colombia,” Press Release, June 2015; and “EU vows to contribute $29M to Colombia peace process,” Colombia Reports, 11 June 2015.

[3] US Department of State, Fact Sheet, “US-Colombia High-Level Partnership Dialogue,” 27 April 2015; and “US to invest in demining to help Colombia’s peace process,” AFP, 27 April 2015.

[4] Average exchange rate for 2014: C$1.1043=US$1; €1=US$1.3297; NOK6.2969=US$1; SEK6.8576=US$1; CHF0.9147=US$1; ¥79.82=US$1. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 2 January 2015.

[5] Government of Colombia, Humanitarian Action Plan 2014–2016, undated, p. 21. Average exchange rate for 2014: US$1=COP1998.02, Oanda, Historical Exchange Rates.

[6] See previous Monitor reports.