Military Tribunal Demands Evidence from JEP Judge Over Cover-Up Allegations
The Superior Military Tribunal rejected statements by judge Catalina Díaz Gómez, who claimed that military justice served to "cover up" human rights cases.
Institutional clash between Military Tribunal and JEP over cover-up accusations
The Superior Military and Police Tribunal demanded that judge Catalina Díaz Gómez, president of the Truth Recognition Chamber of the JEP, provide concrete evidence to support her claim that Military Criminal Justice had operated as a "cover-up mechanism" in cases linked to serious human rights violations. This was reported by infobae.com based on information released by Blu Radio.
The controversy erupted following an interview given by Díaz Gómez to El Espectador, in which she publicly questioned the role of that jurisdiction in certain judicial proceedings.
Institutional rejection
The Tribunal clarified that it respects the autonomy of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace and the freedom of expression of its members, but rejected that criticisms extended in generalised terms to the entire Military and Police Criminal Justice system.
"We reject generalisations that characterise our entire jurisdiction as a 'cover-up mechanism'," the corporation stated in an official statement.
The institution maintained that such a sweeping assertion disregards the work carried out by its officials and the judicial results obtained in recent years. Additionally, it invited Díaz Gómez to present complaints before the competent authorities if she has evidence that could substantiate possible irregularities or unlawful actions.
The Tribunal defended its constitutional autonomy and independence and stated that its decisions are adopted under principles of impartiality, respect for human rights, International Humanitarian Law and due process. It also noted that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, as the closing body of this jurisdiction, can account for the results of the proceedings conducted.
Figures presented as support
As part of its institutional defence, the Superior Military Tribunal released statistics of its management between 2022 and the current 2026: 536 conviction sentences and 135 acquittals at second instance.
The corporation specified that those rulings do not correspond exclusively to offences directly related to military or police service. Among the cases heard by the jurisdiction are cases of homicide, personal injuries and offences against public administration, among other conduct.
With these figures, the Tribunal sought to counter the thesis that the jurisdiction would function systematically as a mechanism designed to obstruct investigations.
The institution also drew a comparison with the results of the JEP, noting relevant differences given the more than eight years of operation of transitional justice. However, the information released did not include concrete figures on JEP decisions used to establish that comparison, which makes it impossible to determine exactly what difference was pointed out.
The underlying debate
The Tribunal's institutional response does not address specific cases mentioned by the judge, given that the available information does not specify which particular situations Díaz Gómez used to support her questioning.
The discussion centres, for the time being, on the general scope of her assertions and on the Tribunal's demand that any allegation be accompanied by individualised data and evidence.
The confrontation occurs at a time of intense debate about the role of different jurisdictions in relation to conduct committed during the Colombian armed conflict and on the powers of transitional justice against Military Criminal Justice.
The Superior Military Tribunal maintains its rejection of the generalisation formulated by Díaz Gómez and maintains that any questioning about possible cover-up cases must be supported by verifiable information and formal complaints to the competent authorities.
Source: Google News CO — Crime