In the meantime, one has to wonder what good is international law if it cannot stop or even slow the rampant violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Colombia? What purpose does it serve if no international tribunal yet exists to combat impunity and ensure some degree of accountability in that country?

One answer is that human rights and humanitarian law – the conscience of international law – is today an essential component of the arduous search for peace in Colombia. Since being elected in 1998, President Andrés Pastrana has made important strides towards achieving a negotiated settlement to the armed conflict. He reached preliminary agreements with the FARC and the ELN that acknowledge the urgent need to "humanize" the conflict by signing accords that promote greater respect for human rights and humanitarian law norms. Finally, on June 2, 2001, the first such accord was signed: the FARC agreed to release approximately 100 police and army captives in exchange for the government’s liberation of 15 guerrilla leaders held in Colombian jails. Moreover, after its leaders were freed, the FARC handed over another 260 servicemen as a humanitarian gesture, bringing the total of freed government prisoners to over 360.

The parties to the conflict could, and hopefully will, build on this landmark agreement by signing similar humanitarian accords and, eventually, a cease-fire. Government officials claim that new agreements with the FARC and the ELN are just around the corner. Future accords would seek primarily to protect the civilian population from attack, to reaffirm the state’s obligation to respect human rights, and to curb abuses of humanitarian law by the guerrillas, such as kidnapping and the recruitment of children. The parties (and most observers) agree that subscribing additional agreements, and including a component of international verification to check for compliance, are necessary steps on the path to peace.

As new agreements are signed, the need for international verification of compliance will further entrench the role of international law as a guarantor of the peace process in Colombia. While it is still uncertain what form this verification would take, it will depend on the participation of legal experts from Colombia and abroad responsible for overseeing compliance with the human rights and humanitarian rules enshrined in those agreements. In El Salvador and Guatemala, such international verification served as the foundation upon which subsequent peace agreements ending the conflict in both countries were constructed.

There is no denying that international law is an integral part of the search for a negotiated solution to the armed conflict in Colombia. And when peace finally does come to our beleaguered country, the subject of dealing with a legacy of past abuses in the context of national reconciliation will loom large. The calls for truth about the past and justice for the war’s countless victims will clash with the political realities of making the peace accords stick. Military and political leaders on all sides will need to confront the prospect of accountability, and to address past wrongs, before a lasting peace can take hold. It is essential that mechanisms and procedures capable of processing the international crimes committed by the warring parties be created if Colombia is to eventually transition from being a country torn by violent conflict and unspeakable crimes to one advancing down the path to reconciliation, peace and prosperity.

Whether the machinery of accountability takes the form of an international criminal tribunal for Colombia, like the one established for Rwanda, or a truth and reconciliation commission like South Africa’s, is a matter for future negotiations. What is certain is that international law will continue to play a lead role in Colombia’s quest for a just and durable peace.