The use or not of lethal weapons by the public force in the social protest when it becomes violent, dominated the debate in the Sovereignty and Integral Security Commission, this February 16, in the context of the debate on the construction of the articles of the progressive use of force bill.
The text is found in article 25 of the project, which refers to the use of force in contexts of social protests that turn violent, where it is stated that when peaceful demonstrations turn violent, police and military servants may do use of force, in unrestricted observance of the principles, levels and prohibitions established by law.
Security Commission began construction of articles on progressive use of force
The inclusion of this text aroused the debate between the assembly delegates of the Union for Hope (UNES), Creating Opportunities (CREO) and the Christian Social Party (PSC), where they referred to the events of October 2019, regarding the action of the police and the demonstrators.
The president of the table, Ramiro Narváez (ID), made a call not to ideologize the processing of this project and not to legislate for particular cases. That they make their proposal for the drafting of the article to subsequently evaluate whether it complies with international parameters and the Constitution.
In numeral 4 of article 25, it states that “the use of lethal force in the context of demonstrations that turn violent is expressly prohibited.”
Against this, the legislator Geraldine Weber (PSC), commented that the prohibition is fine, but it must be conditional on the use of non-lethal weapons by certain protesters not putting the life or physical integrity of other people at risk.
But an exception must be included, because in the event that some protesters use lethal weapons against the forces of order, then there must be a response from the State in safeguarding the life and physical integrity of other people and of the agents themselves. of the order.
He indicated that organized crime is everywhere, one person with a firearm is enough to kill 20 or 30 people; For this reason, the law must establish limits, since there are many demonstrators who can use lethal weapons, not only against the children and adolescents who are so concerned, but also against the public force. “We are not living in Miami, we are not living in a culture of peace and order,” he noted.
Legislator Patricia Nuñez (UNES), commented that lethal weapons cannot be used against protesters. That it is necessary to clearly differentiate between crime and social protest, the latter is a constitutional right and is peaceful, she added.
That in order to control these demonstrations from becoming violent, other parameters must be sought and not the use of lethal weapons, Nuñez insisted.
Legislator Jorge Pinto (CREO), considered that the criminals who infiltrate the demonstrations must be arrested.
That if there is a group of protesters, it is presumed that they are not armed, therefore, the use of lethal force should be prohibited, but the control and action of the police against a criminal who infiltrated the protest should be allowed. society that is armed and makes use of that weapon.
Pinto insisted that there should be a specific paragraph that in the arrest of a criminal who uses a firearm against the protester or against the National Police, he must be neutralized, not the protesters.
The technical team of the legislative table recommended that the text should take into account the sentence No. 33-20-IN/21 of the Constitutional Court, referring to the declaration of unconstitutionality of the regulation of the Progressive, Rational and Differentiated Use of Force by part of the members of the Armed Forces.
That special caution must be taken insofar as it has to do with the power that agents may have to improperly apply the use of force, but that does not mean that specific and specific cases cannot be regulated, without contradicting the Court’s ruling. .
The judgment of the Court in paragraphs 127, 128, 129 and 130 that refers to the principle of protection of life and use of firearms, where the constitutional judges indicated that in case of doubt the officials in charge of enforcing the law They will not use firearms against people except in self-defense or against others in case of imminent danger of death or serious injury or for the purpose of avoiding the commission of a particularly serious crime that involves a serious threat to life.
It requires that deadly force may not be intentionally used solely to protect public order or other similar interests, for example, it may not be used solely to suppress protests, detain a criminal suspect, or safeguard other interests such as property. (I)
Source: Eluniverso
Mario Twitchell is an accomplished author and journalist, known for his insightful and thought-provoking writing on a wide range of topics including general and opinion. He currently works as a writer at 247 news agency, where he has established himself as a respected voice in the industry.
