An expert’s views on reparation in Colombia

Can you tell us more about macro-case 05? What is important about this case and why do we work on it?  

DB: The JEP is a special court established to address large-scale crimes committed during the armed conflict in Colombia (ongoing since 1964). Rather than doing a case-by-case investigation, the court examines patterns of violence to identify and punish those responsible for it.  

The JEP decided to group the crimes into 11 macro-cases and assign them a number. One of its significant cases is macro-case 05, which focuses on crimes committed between 1993 and 2016 by security forces and FARC guerrillas in a zone of Valle and Cauca. This area, home to Afro-Colombian, Indigenous, and LGBTQIA+ communities, saw widespread sexual violence during the conflict. 

Macro-case 05 is especially important for us given the high number of sexual violence cases linked to the conflict in this region and because survivors are still waiting for justice and reparation measures. This case shows the harms caused at the individual and collective levels.  

GSF is also working on macro-case 09, which investigates the crimes and violence committed against some indigenous communities (Wiwa, Aruhaca, Kankuama and Kogui in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta). 

In macro-case 05, GSF plays a crucial role in providing technical support to the JEP and creating ‘openings’ where survivors can participate and contribute in defining which restorative measure they want.1  

The JEP accepted our methodology, which included workshops and meetings with survivors and their lawyers to develop a collective set of measures to repair the damage caused by sexual and other gender-based violences. In this instance, the survivors proposed establishing centres for victims of sexual violence. Perpetrators are expected to contribute to the restorative measures through their “work, activities and actions”, as long as they didn’t commit the crimes in the region where they work. 

This collaborative process took place between March 2023 and September 2024 through workshops with the survivors, meetings with the survivors’ lawyers, consultations and a constant dialogue with the office of the lead judge of the JEP. We developed new ways of working (methodologies) to obtain results, while respecting the voice of survivors.  

What are the challenges you face in this work?  

DB: For macro-case 05 we are facing many challenges. The ongoing armed conflict in many areas has prevented us from holding workshops with survivors in rural regions, limiting their capacity to propose options on their preferred reparation measures.  

Coordinating with the JEP and other stakeholders requires constant dialogue and frequent adjustments. 

The case involves a wide cultural diversity among survivors, including Indigenous groups, Afro-Colombians, LGBTQIA+ individuals, peasants, and female ex-combatants who were also subjected to sexual violence – and all this has to be done with culturally sensitive approaches.  

There is also uncertainty around the implementation of collective reparation measures, which depend on funding, government support and technical development.  

Also, the lack of access to individual reparations through the administrative programme has made it difficult to prioritise collective measures, because women’s most urgent needs are individual – and not currently addressed.  

Survivors often expect GSF to provide material resources or funding, which creates confusion. It is a challenge to manage expectations and clarify our role on advocacy and technical support.  

Can you describe to us some of the achievements? 

DB: We are proud of the trust and understanding we’ve built with the survivors who come from diverse ethnic, cultural, and ideological backgrounds. They have reached a consensus on at least one collective measure: the establishment of a centre for victims of sexual violence. As mentioned earlier, they have proposed specific ways in which perpetrators can contribute to the creation of this centre, marking a significant step towards justice and restoration. 

In macro-case 05, the JEP accepted our co-creation methodology within the transitional justice process. Survivors actively participated in the process, providing them with an opportunity to demand reparations based on the harm they endured, while also involving the perpetrators and seeking their acknowledgment of the wrongs committed. 

Another milestone has been our work with Wiwa indigenous women in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. GSF was made aware of their plight through the work of the Universidad del Rosario, which had uncovered the unique spiritual and cultural damages they suffered during the armed conflict, including sexual violence. Recognising the gravity of these harms—such as spiritual damage, the disruption of cultural practices, and the desecration of sacred sites—GSF initiated a space for dialogue and support. The Wiwa women want certain conditions to be fulfilled before deciding whether to take part in the judicial process with the JEP. They ask for the protection of their cultural and spiritual practices, specifically the safeguarding of women’s sacred sites that have been negatively impacted by the conflict. 

Our team began an important dialogue with the Public Ministry. We facilitated virtual roundtables and provided information to help state entities better understand the Wiwa women’s requests. As a result, the Public Ministry filed a request to the JEP for judicial protection for indigenous territory and, most notably, the sacred female sites. This is a historic moment, as it is the first time spiritual damage has been addressed with a focus on women’s sacred spaces. 
 

What have we learned about our work in Colombia?  

DB: The context in Colombia is very specific but our work there can help us draw best practices for other countries. 

I feel that the most meaningful aspect of our work lies in listening to the voices of underrepresented survivors – who are often made invisible- and ensuring that their perspectives are included in national discussions and decision-making processes. 

Building trust with survivors is another important lesson. Trust is developed gradually through constant dialogue, transparency, and being sensitive to their realities. Keeping survivors informed about both achievements and challenges helps maintain trust, but this process is fragile; any changes within our team can disrupt it. Having a good connection with survivors while maintaining a neutral position is sometimes like walking a tightrope. In Colombia, there are multiple survivor organisations with different interests and positions, but we work hard to preserve a common working space for all.  

We have also learned the importance of flexibility in our methodology. Working with survivors requires creative, pedagogical, and psychosocial approaches tailored to their needs. Workshops often take more time than planned, as they require space for survivors to engage fully. This flexibility is how we can support their healing process. 

Ensuring that survivors have access to safe, confidential spaces has been essential in meeting our objectives.  

Finally, we work to ground ourselves in Colombia’s extensive experience with transitional justice and to learn from survivors and their local knowledge. This approach has allowed us to advocate more effectively for and with them.

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.