This is how Colombian candidates and political leaders reacted to the decision of the Hague Court in the conflict with Nicaragua

After the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, it ruled to respond to one of the demands currently being filed against our country. The ruling that defines the future of the dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua over the territorial space surrounding the archipelago of San Andrés and Providencia and Santa Catalina, in this case from the Netherlands, issued the ruling against Colombia.

Faced with this situation, the presidential candidate of the Historical Pact, Gustavo Petro, spoke on his social networks.

In addition, Petro continued to state that “Bogotá's legal strategy was developed from the Bogota offices and did not take into account the interest of the Raizal community of San Andrés. That's why we lost. Now it is necessary to recover the fishing rights of the raizal community based on a bilateral agreement with Nicaragua.”

Sergio Fajardo, presidential candidate for the Esperanza Center, also wrote on his social networks about the ruling: “Concerning the Hague ruling, these are matters of sovereignty and it is up to the government to comply with constitutional and legal norms in Colombia, to protect our rights and those of the raizal and island population of the archipelago from San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina”, he said on his social networks.

For his part, former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez posted on his Twitter account: “Today we reaffirm: it is better to have diplomatic tension for decades than to hand over a millimeter of the Colombian sea of San Andrés.”

From 10 in the morning in The Hague (Netherlands), 3 in the morning in Colombia, the International Court of Justice began to read the ruling regarding the dispute with Nicaragua that in 2017 sued the country for carrying out incursions into the maritime area that has belonged to the Central American country since 2016.

Although in court they considered that there was indeed a violation of that nation's rights over that portion of the sea, they urged that there be a negotiation to allow raizal fishermen to have access to the Nicaraguan area.

On this subject, however, they pointed out that there was not enough documentation to consider that it was an ancestral activity as argued from Colombia, and that it has not been possible to verify that this community has been excluded to fish in the maritime zone.

According to Nicaragua, the Colombian National Navy continues to operate in waters of the Caribbean Sea that are no longer part of its jurisdiction. In addition, they say that the issuance of Decree 1946 of 2013, which establishes the Integral Contiguous Zone of the Archipelago, the Government of Colombia omits the changes that should have occurred on the map after the ruling.

In response to this demand, Colombia countersued Nicaragua. According to the Colombian Foreign Ministry, “Nicaragua has violated the artisanal fishing rights of the inhabitants of the archipelago, in particular the Raizal community, to access and operate their traditional fishing banks.”

In addition, according to Colombia, Nicaragua would have issued a decree in its own legislation that would be contrary to international law and would be seeking to add even more marine areas than it had already won in court, to the detriment of Colombia.

However, the Court confirmed that the Colombian State has breached its international obligation to respect Nicaraguan jurisdiction and has been interfering with Nicaraguan fishing, maritime research and vessel research activities in that country.

KEEP READING: