Legitimacy of Special Jurisdiction for Peace

After four years of negotiation, the Colombian Government and the FARC-EP guerrilla agreed to put an end to the longest internal armed conflict in Latin America. Transitional Justice mechanisms, such as the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, were agreed upon to put on trial those who had committed crimes during the armed conflict, imposing penalties that may be other than imprisonment. This Jurisdiction has received criticism and it was not endorsed by the Colombians -in the plebiscite, in which they were consulted about the approval of the agreement, a majority voted "NO"- however, these reasons alone do not imply that it lacks legitimacy. In this sense, in this article will be analyzed the main elements of the formation process of this jurisdiction from different political legitimacy theories to determine whether it has such attribute. That the institution is perceived as legitimate is important since it cancels the ordinary criminal justice of a Democratic State and involves cessions in terms of retributive justice, with the aim to overcome an armed conflict and to move towards peace. As a conclusion, it is suggested that this Jurisdiction must be considered a legitimate institution, because: it was deliberatively originated; its content is reasonable; it got qualified social recognition; and finally, it was endorsed by the Congress of the Republic as an organ of popular representation by virtue of representative democracy.