The Colombian Constitutional and Supreme Court’s interpretation of superior responsibility as cases of commission by omission and indirect perpetration excludes most military superiors’ omissions of their duties to prevent, repress and submit subordinates’ international crimes to the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the notion of complicity by omission, as a form of accessorial liability, and the crime of abetting could cover this gap with regard to omissions carried out by military superiors with dolus. Furthermore, although Colombian criminal law does not provide for negligent military superiors’ omissions, the Colombian Armed Forces Operational law attaches disciplinary responsibility to military superiors’ omissions, which are carried out with gross negligence. Moreover, the Peace Agreement of 24 November 2016 between the Colombian Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – Popular Army (‘the FARC’), explicitly provides for criminal liability for gross negligent omissions of Colombian Security Forces superiors and FARC superiors with regard to subordinates’ international crimes related to the armed conflict. Further, the provisions of the Agreement on superior responsibility of Colombian Security Forces superiors have been subsequently incorporated into the Colombian Constitution by the 4 April 2017 Legislative Act 01/2017 and the provisions relating to FARC superiors were incorporated into Colombian law through the 30 November 2017 Law on the Special Jurisdiction for Peace. Although this approach was upheld by the 24 November 2017 Colombian Constitutional Court (‘CCC’) judgment C-674/2017 and the CCC’s 16 August 2018 public statement, which declared, respectively, the constitutionality of Legislative Act 01/2017 and the Law on the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, this position has come at a high prize because not only have all references to international law been eliminated from the definition of superior responsibility for Colombian Security Forces superiors (they have only been kept in relation to FARC superiors), but several additional requirements have also been added to the definition. The result significantly restricts the scope of application. Last but not least, the notion of superior responsibility for civilian superiors is not yet applicable in Colombia due to the absence of an explicit reference to it under Colombian law and the Colombian Constitutional Court’s ‘distinctive approach’ doctrine.

中文翻译：

---

哥伦比亚对最高责任的处理：解读哥伦比亚政府与哥伦比亚革命武装力量之间的协议†

哥伦比亚宪法法院和最高法院将上级责任解释为不作为和间接犯罪案件，排除了大多数军事上级未履行其防止、镇压下属的国际罪行并将其提交主管当局的职责。尽管如此，作为附带责任的一种形式的不作为共谋的概念和教唆罪可以弥补军事上级在执行不作为方面的这一差距。此外，虽然哥伦比亚刑法没有规定军事上级疏忽的疏忽，但哥伦比亚武装部队行动法将纪律责任赋予军事上级疏忽的纪律责任，这是在严重疏忽的情况下进行的。而且，2016 年 11 月 24 日哥伦比亚政府与哥伦比亚革命武装力量 - 人民军（“哥伦比亚革命武装力量”）之间的和平协议明确规定了哥伦比亚安全部队上级和哥伦比亚革命武装力量上级对下属的重大疏忽疏忽的刑事责任“与武装冲突有关的国际罪行。此外，哥伦比亚安全部队上级上级责任协定的规定随后通过 2017 年 4 月 4 日第 01/2017 号立法法案纳入哥伦比亚宪法，而与哥伦比亚革命武装力量上级相关的规定于 2017 年 11 月 30和平特别管辖权法。尽管这种做法得到了 2017 年 11 月 24 日哥伦比亚宪法法院 ('CCC') 判决 C-674/2017 和 CCC 2018 年 8 月 16 日公开声明的支持，分别宣布 01/2017 年立法法和在和平特别司法管辖区，这一职位获得了很高的评价，因为不仅在哥伦比亚安全部队上级的上级责任定义中删除了所有对国际法的提及（它们只保留与哥伦比亚革命武装力量上级有关），而且定义中还增加了几项额外要求。结果大大限制了应用范围。最后但并非最不重要的，