With the dynamics of the Peace Accord, we have lost sight of the Constitutional Court's decision on the Zidres Law. 

As many of us who voted YES and others who voted NO, I was hopeful about a peace accord supported by many. Not by all, because no war has ended in unanimity, but supported by critics and defenders of the previous accord that had sought intermediate solutions to complex dilemmas such as the sanctions for those responsible of serious crimes. 

Our lawyer Anna Joseph wrote a blog for the Huffington Post on the eviction of the peace camp in Bogota, explaining the numerous national and international laws that were not respected during the dismantlement. The blog was published in Spanish by Las 2 Orillas.

Everyone is talking about Trump’s victory, but what else happened in the US on November 8th?

Drug policy in Colombia is subject, at least politically, to the margin of action provided by the Havana Agreement on illicit drugs. A few days ago Colombians found our about the new agreement, and the scope of the changes incorporated after the proposals of the No campaign.

Accounting for the proportions, the equivalent to the construction of an avenue in a few days that later completely collapsed in Japan was for us the discussion and agreement of the peace accord in Havana. 

The new accord collected the main objections of the NO campaign given that in only one important topic (political eligibility) there were no significant changes. But the new text also maintained the essence and structure of the previous accord. 

Much has been debated about what is the best peace accord possible. Humberto de la Calle said the answer was the last one; now he argues that it is the new one. The most skeptical sectors of the NO said it is neither one or the other.