Reflections on the Role of the Judge in Protecting Human Rights in the Context of Armed Conflicts: How Much Impunity Can the End of the Conflict Tolerate? How Much Injustice Does Peace Deserve?

This reflection begins with an analysis of its title. Consequently, it presents, in broad terms and in a deductive manner, the historical, legal, and jurisprudential contexts of an armed conflict. Next, the legal purposes of punishment in response to a punishable act are presented and contrasted with the goals society aspires to achieve upon the end of an armed conflict. This leads to a transitional period that allows for special legal processes —in this case, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace— alongside the extrajudicial mechanisms and reparations measures inherent to the comprehensive system of truth, justice, reparations, and guarantees of non-repetition. Next, specific perspectives that the judicial decision-maker must keep in mind when making a decision are presented, such as Colombian criminal law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, operational law, universal jurisdiction, and, of course, the Special Jurisdiction, noting transitional approaches applied in previous cases and the areas pertaining to amnesty and pardon, as they are distinct. This highlights a shift in the spirit of legal norms and judicial powers, moving toward a restorative rather than retributive approach to resolution. This, in turn, brings to light the challenges facing the judicial protection of human rights under international humanitarian law. Consequently, there is a need for training not only for judges but also for lawyers in general, particularly in light of dialogic and adversarial proceedings.