The new accusatory system that began to govern 20 days ago promises a substantial improvement in justice, but there is a lot to do to achieve it.

The criminal trial reform seeks more efficient means of investigation, clearer judgments, more independent judges and more protected guarantees.

The idea to improve the judicial defense system of Colombia is not that it will always be successful in winning cases but rather at times when cases are lost; it is because of the abuses that haunt you. Rodrigo Uprimny’s response to reactions to his column about the judicial defense system in Colombia.

The re-election of George W. Bush will bring important consequences for American foreign policy on Latin America. César Rodríguez analyzes the effect of the election results on the Colombian Plan and on the negotiations of the United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Andean countries.

The great majority of Colombians chose Alvaro Uribe as their president because they wanted a strong state. That state ended the idle pursuit of peace with subversion and ended the unworthy situation of the people by putting them into a relaxed atmosphere. After two years of Uribe government, the dignity of the state has once again found itself at rock bottom, this time caused by the process of peace of the Holy Faith of Ralito. Before the paramilitary, the Uribe government seemed as weak as or weaker than that of Pastrana in front of guerrilla warfare. Where is this promise of a strong state?

According to Rodrigo Uprimny, an investigator at Dejusticia, the Colombian state which is one of the most frequent users of the judicial system is acting as a novice that loses many processes that it should have won. Uprimny quotes Diego López and Helena Alviar stating that the defense of the state should be “more modern and more efficient from a bureaucratic point of view and more democratic and inclusive from a social point of view”.

In a democracy, what are the limits of power of the executive to confront terrorism? Can a democracy, even when fighting terrorism, detain people indefinitely without access to a lawyer and without the guarantee of judicial review of the cause of his detention? The Supreme Court of the United States resolved these questions in two cases: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush. The opinions of the Supreme Court demonstrate that a democracy requires minimum guarantees that cannot be limited even in extreme circumstances, as in the current one, ‘the fight against terrorism’. These opinions are important within a Colombian context for two reasons. In one way, they show that in a democratic system there is a division of powers as in the system of breaks and counterweights which is designed to avoid the total control of one branch of government. In these cases in particular, the judicial branch kept the executive power from being excessive and thus guaranteed the efficient exercise of fundamental rights. On the other hand, the opinions show that even the fight against terrorism has constitutional limitations that cannot be violated.