Since 1964, Colombia has endured a grueling armed conflict between the government, far-right paramilitary groups, far-left guerrillas, and crime syndicates involved mainly in the drug trade. 

The more than six decades of violence ravaged the country, leaving an estimated 450,000 victims, with an additional one million fleeing into exile and another eight suffering internal displacement.

Perhaps the most shattering evidence of the Colombian tragedy is the number of people who saw their friends and loved ones vanish without a trace: according to official data, a staggering 135,000 people have been forcibly disappeared since the beginning of the conflict. 

In 2016, the government and the armed guerrilla group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP), two of the main antagonists, reached a peace agreement. 

And although the ceasefire was violated numerous times and the conflict has not ended entirely, the treaty did lead to the fulfillment of a long-standing demand from victims’ families: the creation of a state organ tasked with searching for the disappeared.

The division, officially called the Unit for the Search of Persons Deemed Disappeared, was set up as an extrajudicial proceeding, meaning there would be no legal consequences for those responsible for the crimes. This sprang from the endeavor’s main goal: to find as many disappeared people as possible, regardless of their role. 

This has been a source of criticism in some sectors and countries. While disappearances were a terror tactic all sides used, a 2022 report by a Truth Commission showed how lopsided the responsibility actually was — 52% of the perpetrators were paramilitaries (most of whom were allied to or tolerated by the army), while 24% belonged to the FARC-EP, and 8% were state agents.

Luz Janeth Forero Martínez, a surgeon with a PhD in legal sociology who has headed the unit since 2023, was recently in Buenos Aires with members of her team. In this interview with the Herald, she discusses the Colombian conflict, how the unit was created, and the differences and similarities with how Argentina has dealt with its own disappeared stemming from the 1976-1983 dictatorship.

The interview has been slightly edited for length and clarity. 

How was the unit created?

During the 2012 Havana talks [for a peace agreement], victims’ relatives asked for a specific institution to search for disappeared persons in Colombia. This demand arose primarily from acknowledging the enormous scale of disappearances in the country but also from frustration with the judicial search process. 

Since the 1970s and 1980s, families have conducted searches and later filed legal requests, but without satisfactory results. We search for everyone, regardless of the role they played in the conflict: social leaders, activists, combatants, and members of the armed forces. What matters is that their families want to know what happened.

Does the slogan often heard at demonstrations, “They were taken alive; we want them back alive,” factor into your work?

The chant reflects the legitimate aspiration of all families: that their loved one is alive. That expectation can be difficult to fulfill, especially in such a long and complex conflict, but humanitarian principles require that we search with a presumption of life. In recent years, we have strengthened methodologies for locating people alive and have found nearly 500 of them.

How did they go undetected for so long?

Many cases involve individuals forcibly recruited as children who later lost contact with their families. Our most iconic case was a person found alive after 57 years. Two relatives submitted a search request in the north of the country, and the person was ultimately located in the south. 

In Argentina, significant resources are needed for this kind of work, and currently, there are cuts to memory and search policies. How does the unit get its funding?

As a state institution, we get it from the national budget. There are, however, many challenges, as Colombia has serious geographic and access limitations, and disappearances occurred in very remote areas. 

We also receive some international support. We have faced significant budget deficits, which have worsened in recent years. We strive to maintain technical rigor and guarantee victim participation, which also means covering travel and other costs.

What is the main difference between extrajudicial and judicial searches? 

The victim’s role is a key difference. Humanitarian extrajudicial search has a reparative principle: searching itself is a form of reparation. In judicial searches, there is often a significant distance between judicial authorities and victims. In our case, victims participate by providing information, accompanying investigations, attending exhumations, and taking part in the identification and dignified return processes. 

Many families submit case files that are more organized than judicial records. Additionally, the right to search is an autonomous right. In judicial processes, the emphasis is on justice — finding those responsible. The priority here is locating the disappeared person. Our confidentiality allows dialogue with those who participated in hostilities without the information being used in criminal proceedings. 

Do you face criticism that the extrajudicial approach sacrifices the right to justice?

Yes, though more from other countries. Colombian victims have demonstrated extraordinary resilience and capacity for forgiveness. We have seen profoundly reparative encounters between those responsible and victims. Many victims say, “I would rather know the truth — even if there are no criminal consequences.” These are difficult balances between truth and justice.

In Argentina, justice was strongly prioritized. How is that viewed from Colombia?

In Chile, they have told us that what we do would be unthinkable. We have what we call “truth encounters,” when we cannot find the person alive or dead. In those cases, the possible responsible party meets face-to-face with the family in a carefully prepared and supported process. Many victims describe it as healing. The Colombian conflict was extremely complex and degraded. There are cases where victims later became perpetrators and vice versa. Understanding human dignity in all cases has been fundamental to maintaining our neutrality.

What was the purpose of the trip to Argentina?

To exchange experiences and learn. Colombia has made important advances, but this mechanism is only nine years old and has had to accelerate its processes and learn from international experience. The Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team has long been a reference for us. We also wanted to learn about Argentina’s memory policies: the resignification of former detention centers and the work of the Grandmothers and Mothers of Plaza de Mayo. 

We consider Argentina a global example in memory practices. For us, search work is inseparable from memory. A dignified return is an act of memory and reconciliation. In Colombia, we are promoting memorials, including for remains that cannot be identified due to deterioration.

Are you seeking concrete agreements with Argentine institutions?

Yes, particularly regarding the processing of biological samples. In nine years, we have recovered around 4,300 bodies, but identification remains the main challenge. We visited the genetic laboratory in Córdoba to assess its capacity and explore potential agreements to accelerate processing.

What is the level of social consensus in Colombia regarding search and memory?

There are organizations and collectives deeply committed to this work, but broader society often lacks awareness of the phenomenon of disappearance. It is a major pedagogical challenge. Many people do not feel connected to the issue unless it directly affects them.

© Buenos Aires Herald