These two decisions illustrate distinct yet complementary strategies of the Colombian justice system over two decades, seeking to deliver justice in the face of thousands of atrocities committed over a half-century armed conflict. A review of the judicial documents addressing G\u00e9chem\u2019s kidnapping reveals differences in scope and emphasis between the two types of justice, but also the way in which they feed one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both focused on a mix of material perpetrators and masterminds linked to the former congressman\u2019s abduction. Whilst in the ordinary justice system they were sentenced in absentia to long prison terms they never came close to serving, in the transitional justice system they are now obliged to acknowledge their responsibility, apologise publicly and redress their victims, as conditions for receiving lighter sentences. The original ruling convicted them solely for G\u00e9chem\u2019s abduction, whilst the new indictments address his entire captivity and that of dozens of other victims within a broader macro-case. Both charged them with the offence of hostage-taking: however, whilst the first added the offences of aircraft hijacking and terrorism, the second concluded that they committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, the most serious offences under international law. One merely describes the circumstances of the abduction, whilst the more recent one recounts in detail the humiliating treatment inflicted upon them and their suffering in captivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These differences take on greater significance now that the JEP\u2019s Acknowledgment Chamber has, for the first time in its eight-year history, concluded the investigation phase<\/a> of a macro-case, with the latest two indictments against members of the last two regional blocs of the now-defunct guerrilla. In total, the JEP unveiled eight collective accusations over kidnappings \u2013 one of the most emblematic crimes of the Colombian conflict \u2013 resulting in 63 former FARC members being charged and seven, those from its final leadership, already convicted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of all of them, only 23 had previously been convicted in the ordinary courts and 13 had served time in prison. All have chosen to admit their guilt and apologise to their victims (except for those recently charged, who still have a month to decide).<\/p>\n\n\n\n G\u00e9chem Turbay, an economist now aged 74, had been a prominent figure in Colombian politics for two decades. He\u2019d served as a senator for the Liberal Party for three terms and as a member of the House of Representatives for another two. Previously, he\u2019d been a town councillor, a departmental lawmaker and secretary of public works in his native Huila. He is also the third cousin<\/a> of a former president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the morning of 20 February 2002, in the midst of the campaign to secure his sixth term in Congress, the Aires flight carrying him from Neiva to Bogot\u00e1 was hijacked by FARC. Several rebels from the Te\u00f3filo Forero Mobile Column boarded the flight, inexplicably carrying weapons that a faulty metal detector failed to detect. After taking control, they forced the pilot to change course and land on a rural road between Hobo and Gigante. They released the other 19 passengers, the pilot and the flight attendant, but took the congressman with them. \u201cWe\u2019ve come for you, G\u00e9chem,\u201d they told him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It wasn\u2019t the first time G\u00e9chem\u2019s family experienced the guerrillas\u2019 cruelty<\/a> first-hand. In 1995, the FARC kidnapped his cousin Rodrigo Turbay, a congressman for the neighbouring department of Caquet\u00e1, and abandoned his lifeless body in the Cagu\u00e1n River two years later. Then, in December 2000, in one of the most notorious massacres they perpetrated, they murdered his other cousin, Diego Turbay \u2013 who had taken Rodrigo\u2019s place in Congress \u2013 and his aunt, In\u00e9s Cote, whilst they were travelling by road.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The aerial abduction of G\u00e9chem, at the time chairman of the congressional peace commission, had immediate political repercussions. Occurring just three days after the same guerrilla had kidnapped presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and her running mate Clara Rojas, it led then-President Andr\u00e9s Pastrana to suspend peace negotiations with FARC that had made almost no progress in four years. He also ended the military clearance of an area the size of Switzerland, which the government ordered to facilitate talks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n G\u00e9chem remained a hostage until 28 February 2008, a captivity he described in his book They Diverted<\/em> the Flight!: The Ordeal <\/em>of My<\/em> Kidnapping<\/em> as \u201cnot merely detention (\u2026) in conditions of vulnerability and fragility, but also being removed from one\u2019s reality, one\u2019s family, one\u2019s work, one\u2019s hopes and one\u2019s expectations\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two years after G\u00e9chem\u2019s release, his case reached a first milestone in the ordinary courts. On 7 October 2010, a judge in Neiva sentenced nine members of FARC. One of the fake passengers, Robinson Matiz, was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Several senior guerrilla leaders, including five who would eventually join its Secretariat, were sentenced to 32 years in prison for the \u201cconception, planning and execution\u201d of the kidnapping. All were ordered to pay him 480 times the minimum monthly wage (around $140,000 at the time).<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, having been convicted in absentia, none of them actually faced justice for their part in the crime. Rodrigo Londo\u00f1o \u2018Timochenko\u2019, Milton Toncel \u2018Joaqu\u00edn G\u00f3mez\u2019, Luis Alberto Alb\u00e1n \u2018Marcos Calarc\u00e1\u2019 and Luciano Mar\u00edn \u2018Iv\u00e1n M\u00e1rquez\u2019 evaded the authorities until the peace negotiations. Only Londo\u00f1o, who was the guerrilla\u2019s last commander-in-chief and signed the peace agreement on its behalf, had 38 convictions<\/a>, 163 ongoing cases, 118 arrest warrants and a criminal case in the US at the time the talks with the Colombian government began in 2012. None of them ever set foot in a prison (and one, Iv\u00e1n M\u00e1rquez, ended up abandoning the peace deal and his men to take up arms again).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Prosecutor\u2019s Office had aimed even higher. In its 2007 indictment, it also charged the commander-in-chief \u2018Manuel Marulanda\u2019 and senior leaders \u2018Ra\u00fal Reyes\u2019 and \u2018Mono Jojoy\u2019, but the judge had to dismiss the criminal proceedings against the three because, in the intervening three years, they\u2019d all died \u2013 one from illness and the others in army operations. Jojoy\u2019s death had occurred just two weeks earlier. Another convicted man, Guillermo Le\u00f3n S\u00e1enz or \u2018Alfonso Cano\u2019, who was to take Marulanda\u2019s place, would die a year later in another military operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In deciding which facts to underscore, the ordinary courts provided a brief, factual account of the operation by which FARC kidnapped G\u00e9chem. They described in some detail only how the rebels forced the plane \u201cto land in an area designated and forcibly secured by the organisation\u201d, how their colleagues \u201cset up roadblocks to the north and south, preventing travellers and passers-by from circulating\u201d and how they \u201ccut down trees and, to hinder pursuit from authorities, blew up the Argelino Dur\u00e1n bridge over the Neiva River\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judge mentioned his six-year captivity and his release, but only once \u2013 when assessing the damages for which the convicted parties should be liable to G\u00e9chem \u2013 did he emphasise \u201cthe psychological and physical harm, and the damage to self-esteem, decorum and human dignity, represented by the six years of captivity in the Colombian jungles endured by the victim\u201d. The ruling said little about what happened during the kidnapping.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sixteen years after that ruling, the JEP revisited the former senator\u2019s kidnapping in two collective indictments unveiled on the same day: one against seven former members of the Southern Bloc (the unit that abducted G\u00e9chem) and 15 from the Eastern Bloc (the unit that held him captive for most of the time).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among them are two who could be considered material perpetrators of his kidnapping. Fabi\u00e1n Ram\u00edrez was convicted in the original judgement but never stepped in prison and Jos\u00e9 Ricaurte Valencia, better known as \u2018Jer\u00f3nimo Guti\u00e9rrez\u2019 or \u2018Caresanto\u2019, led the 7th<\/sup> Front guard that held G\u00e9chem in custody, but hadn\u2019t been charged before. The JEP charged them all as those ultimately responsible for multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as hostage-taking, severe deprivation of liberty and homicide, but also for other offences committed during captivity, such as torture, cruel treatment and slavery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to them, three others from the original convicted group \u2013 Rodrigo Londo\u00f1o, Milton Toncel and Luis Alberto Alb\u00e1n \u2013 were sentenced by the special tribunal in September 2025<\/a>, having been charged five years earlier<\/a> with thousands of kidnappings, including that of G\u00e9chem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the newly charged individuals have yet to own up to their role and publicly apologise to victims like G\u00e9chem, the investigation process has already yielded new admissions. \u00c1ngel Alberto Garc\u00eda, whose nom de guerre is \u2018Hern\u00e1n Ben\u00edtez\u2019 and who was also charged in this latest round, admitted before the court that G\u00e9chem had no connection with far-right paramilitaries, contrary to what FARC had previously claimed in an attempt to justify his abduction. \u201cWe expressly state that the grounds on which he was detained do not fall within the scope of Law 003 [of the guerrilla]. This statement aims to help restore Mr G\u00e9chem\u2019s good name and dignity,\u201d he said during the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unlike in the ordinary justice system, the JEP\u2019s charges deal extensively with the humiliating treatment that former guerrillas inflicted on their victims during captivity and the suffering they caused their families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This acknowledgement of the pain they endured is one of the aspects the victims value most. From the outset, they have insisted<\/a> on the importance of the FARC not only acknowledging their abductions, but also admit to the degrading treatment they inflicted and the years of suffering their families endured during their absence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The fact that this is now happening within transitional justice may be partly due to the fact that, as Justice Julieta Lemaitre \u2013 who presided over the kidnapping case \u2013 said in a recent interview<\/a> with La Silla Vac\u00eda, \u201cordinary justice, which has an overwhelming caseload and is focused on punishment, really had no incentive to document additional behaviours that would not contribute to the sentence. We document it because we understand that it is very important for the victims.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the episodes that left a scar on kidnapping victims is what they dubbed \u201cthe death march\u201d and which G\u00e9chem refers to in his book as \u201cthe journeying prison\u201d. In late 2004, a group of 38 hostages \u2013 including himself and a five-month-old baby, the child of fellow hostage Clara Rojas \u2013 were forced to walk in chains for 40 days from the Yar\u00ed grasslands to the dense Guaviare jungle, deep in the Amazon, to escape military pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That 200-kilometre journey is described by the JEP as part of \u201cthe worst conditions of captivity\u201d faced by victims. \u201cThe long marches, malnutrition and constant exposure to dampness and insects further deteriorated their physical condition. (\u2026) They were forced to walk in chains for hours through the jungle, negotiating rivers, mud and thick vegetation, which caused them injuries, lacerations and extreme exhaustion,\u201d the indictment against the Eastern Bloc states. \u201cThe guards barely gave them time to rest, and if anyone fell ill or could not keep up, they were dragged along or punished with threats.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The forced march had serious health consequences for many. G\u00e9chem\u2019s spine was affected, making it difficult for him to climb into his cabin and exacerbating, in the words of the JEP, \u201cserious heart problems, considered to be pre-heart attacks or severe episodes of angina pectoris\u201d. Another fellow prisoner, Police General Luis Herlindo Mendieta, had to be carried in a hammock. Fellow congress member Alan Jara experienced similar pain in his legs. G\u00e9chem, like Gloria Polanco and Orlando Beltr\u00e1n, had to be given tablets to control his blood pressure. Five-month-old baby, Emmanuel, fell ill with leishmaniasis and was forcibly separated from his mother, Clara Rojas, for three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\t Similarly, the accusations detail the ill-treatment inflicted on them by FARC. Following the escape of two hostages in other parts of the country, their captors stepped up brutal control measures, such as chaining them all together with a single long chain, day and night, which forced them to do everything together for two and a half years. As Sergeant Arbey Delgado, with whom G\u00e9chem shared captivity, says, \u201cthey subjected us to a punishment that wasn\u2019t even used in the days of slavery\u201d. Consuelo Gonz\u00e1lez de Perdomo recounted that a rebel informed her that, in the event of an escape, each hostage had been assigned someone to shoot them, and that he would be her executioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All this occurred because, although the Secretariat had instructed that captives be treated \u2018well\u2019, in practice this only concerned \u2013 in the JEP\u2019s words \u2013 \u2018the preservation of the captive\u2019s biological life and not their human dignity\u2019. Within this logic, the conditions of captivity \u201cdepended entirely on their jailers or direct guards\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the Eastern Bloc\u2019s case, which held G\u00e9chem hostage, this meant extreme chainings, beatings, humiliations, mock executions, arbitrary prohibitions, insults and threats. These were, in the JEP\u2019s description, \u201cdeliberate ill-treatment which, beyond the conditions of war, stemmed from the captors\u2019 cruelty\u201d. The forced isolation to which they were subjected was, according to the accusation, \u201ca form of dehumanisation that sought to break the victims\u2019 resistance and left irreparable physical and psychological scars\u201d. All this explains why several of those responsible for their care, who were not senior commanders, appear among the accused alongside their superiors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The transitional justice allegations also document less visible, yet equally painful, forms of suffering. In one of their most harrowing sections, they recount how victims were denied the chance to mourn their deceased relatives. G\u00e9chem, like Jara, Beltr\u00e1n and Luis Eladio P\u00e9rez, learnt of his mother\u2019s death whilst in the jungle, after years of not having seen her. They were forced, the prosecution states, \u201cto mourn in private and from afar, cut off from any moral and emotional support that might have been provided by their loved ones\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, having been held captive for so many years wreaked havoc on their life plans as public officials elected by citizens. In the more immediate term, they were \u201cforcibly isolated from the political arena for almost two terms of government\u201d, says the JEP, to the extent that several found it difficult to resume their political careers after their release. This caused harm to them, as well as to their constituents, who \u201calso lost the opportunity for these leaders to implement programmes promoting community development\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This doesn\u2019t mean that the investigations carried out by the JEP solve all their concerns. G\u00e9chem, for example, has insisted for years \u2013 as have colleagues<\/a> such as Gonz\u00e1lez de Perdomo and Beltr\u00e1n \u2013 that it be clarified why only Liberal congressmen were kidnapped in Huila and whether any political rival was involved, as indeed happened in Caquet\u00e1 with G\u00e9chem\u2019s relatives, in whose crimes a former Conservative congressman \u2013 currently awaiting trial at the JEP<\/a> \u2013 participated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, the fact that justice can be served for atrocities such as those experienced by G\u00e9chem may come down to the fact that transitional justice \u2013 in the form of the JEP \u2013 has built its indictments taking into account the work of the ordinary justice system and complementing it. Without that groundwork, Colombia probably wouldn\u2019t have got this far.<\/p>\n\n\nA kidnapping up in the sky<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The ordinary court\u2019s concise and factual account<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The transitional justice\u2019s collective indictment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Jorge](\"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/Colombia_Jorge-Eduardo-Gechem-JEP-meeting_@JEP.jpg\")
Incentives to go beyond the core offences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The \u201cdeath march\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ill-treatment in captivity<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Less obvious consequences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Colombia's](\"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/Colombia_farc-kidnappings-victims_@JEP-540x360.jpg\")
<\/div><\/a>\r\n\t\t\t