DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2021 Contract Title: USAID/Colombia Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning activity Contract Number: 72051419C00001 Submitted: January 2021 Contractor: Panagora Group, LLC COR: Omar López Authors: Miguel Emilio La Rota, Juanita Durán, Jose David Panqueva, and Ana María Trujillo The technical team at Panagora Group included Orlando Gracia, Luisa Fernanda Cardona, and Juan Guillermo Bedoya, Panagora Group Contacts: Ana María Rivera Chief of Party Carrera 7 No. 74B-36, Piso 6, Bogotá, Colombia Email: arivera@panagoracolombia.net Orlando Gracia Lead Evaluation Expert Carrera 7 No. 74B-36, Piso 6, Bogotá, Colombia Email: ogracia@panagoracolombia.net Sarah Tisch Technical Supervisor 8601 Georgia Avenue, Suite 905, Silver Spring, MD, USA Email: sarahtisch@panagoragroup.net CONTENTS ACRONYMS 2 ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 BASELINE PURPOSE 3 BASELINE PROJECT TASKS AND PROGRESS 3 ACTIVITIES FROM THE BEGINNING OF PROJECT TO DECEMBER 20, 2020 4 UPDATE FROM DECEMBER 20, 2020 TO JANUARY 26, 2021 10 MISSED AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: AGENDA FOR FUTURE PROJECTS 15 BASELINE RESULTS 17 ANNEX I: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) 88 ANNEX II: DATABASE 144 ANNEX III: DASHBOARD FOR SELECTED INDICATORS AND VARIABLES 145 INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY DASHBOARD 145 GUIDELINES 145 ACRONYMS AMELP Activity monitoring, evaluation, and learning plan CINEP Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular CLA collaboration, learning, and adaptation CNUP Censo Nacional de Población CSJ Consejo Superior de la judicatura COP Chief of Party COR Contracts Officer Representative CTI Cuerpo Técnico de Investigaciones de la Fiscalía General de la Nación DANE Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas DDL Development Data Library DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DMASC Dirección de Métodos Alternativos de Solución de Conflictos del Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho DNP Departamento Nacional de Planeación DP Defensoría del Pueblo EN Ejército Nacional FOIA Freedom of Information Act GEDIS Información y Registro de la Gestión Disciplinaria de la Procuraduría General de la Nación JPM Justicia Penal Militar LGBTI lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Activity MTIC Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicaciones MPI Multidimensional Poverty Index NARP Población negra, afro, raizal y palenquera INDEPAZ Instituto de Estudios para el Desarrollo y la Paz IGAC Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi INML Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses MOE Misión de Observación Electoral ONG Organización No Gubernamental ODC Observatorio de Drogas de Colombia -UNODC PARES Fundación Paz y Reconciliación PDET Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial PGN Procuraduría General de la Nación PN Policía Nacional PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet RTDAF Registro de Tierras Despojadas y Abandonadas Forzosamente SIM Sistema de Información Misional de la Procuraduría General de la Nación SoW Statement of Work SPOA Sistema Penal Oral Acusatorio – Sistema de Información SQ Squared UBPT Unidad de Búsqueda de Personas dadas por Desaparecidas UAEGRT Unidad Administrativa Especial para la Gestión de Restitución de Tierras UN United Nations UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government 1 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ABSTRACT This project builds a baseline for access to justice in PDET municipalities. It provides data that will serve as the starting point to measure USAID's planned Inclusive Justice activity results in PDET municipalities. This data will provide information on key judicial needs and services linked to the activity's three objectives and a few context indicators. It will assist the activity’s offerors to inform their proposals and implement their activities. The development of this baseline followed three main steps. First, USAID/Colombia and the baseline team built a set of 36 indicators. Second, the baseline team collected administrative data for 28 of these indicators, mainly through derechos de petición and a review of open sources. Finally, the team presented a baseline report, including a database and a Performance Indicator Reference Sheet for each indicator. This final report describes the activities carried out to design the indicators, obtain data, and present the baseline results. It updates an early report submitted on December 20, 2020 and includes new data received up to January 26, 2021. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 2 INTRODUCTION This project builds a baseline for access to justice in PDET municipalities. It provides data on several indicators about justice needs and services that will serve as a starting point to measure USAID’s planned Inclusive Justice activity results. This final report describes the activities carried out to design the indicators and obtain data and present the baseline results. It includes an update from an early report submitted on December 20, 2020. The report presents data on 28 indicators, classified in three Inclusive Justice objectives as well as a set of contextual statistics about relevant municipalities. These indicators are disaggregated in 1,654 variables that give some specificity about the way judicial services are required or provided in selected localities. Data is provided annually from 2016 to November 2020. Data was collected through open sources and derechos de petición, the equivalent to FOIA requests in the U. S. Information for five indicators was accessible through open sources of relevant authorities. Furthermore, the research team filed 97 derechos de petición to 77 authorities, of which 28 were answered satisfactorily, and 38 were answered insufficiently or inadequately. To date, 31 derechos de petición have not been answered at all, despite multiple telephone and email follow-ups. Out of 36 initially planned indicators, this report provides data for 28.1 We discard six indicators for which relevant authorities lack pertinent data. Additionally, we have not received a response from public authorities for two indicators. The scarcity of accurate and systematic information is a serious problem for the Inclusive Justice activity. Data presented for this baseline is, by any measure, insufficient to have a complete or accurate picture of judicial needs and services provided in Colombian municipalities. As this report recommends, an essential part of a future project should aim to build, gather, and organize information about victimization and citizen disputes, basic services provided to respond to these needs, and about the impact of some justice policy interventions. This document is organized as follows: the second section depicts the purpose and characteristics of the access to justice baseline. The third section describes the main activities performed to design the indicators, gather open-source data, file derechos de petición, and classify and follow-up on the responses (or lack thereof). It is divided into two periods: from November to December 20, when a first report was submitted, and an update about the replies received from up to January 26, which also describes the derechos de petición that remain unanswered and the critical missing indicators. This section gives an account of key missing information, either because it was not possible to collect data for planned indicators, or because the research team concluded there was no available data to build a meaningful indicator. The fourth section offers some recommendations for the Inclusive Justice activity, regarding the need to gather and develop better data and the possibility of carrying out impact evaluations of some of the project’s interventions. Lastly, the fifth chapter displays the baseline results, describing the main characteristics and breakdown of 28 indicators, illustrating a few essential data points, and cautioning about its central limitations and risks. 1 Note that the number of derechos de petición answered satisfactorily and the number of indicators for which data is presented in this report are equal. This is a coincidence. 3 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV In addition, three annexes offer a specified and expanded view of all the collected information. Annex I contain technical data for all indicators, incorporated in USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS). Annex II is a spreadsheet with the entire database. Annex III provides a graphic dashboard for a more illustrative view of selected indicators and variables. BASELINE PURPOSE The Inclusive Justice activity will increase the use and quality of justice services in rural, formerly unreachable Colombia areas that are most susceptible to violence, illicit activities, and impunity. The new activity will strengthen state presence, accountability, and citizen trust in the justice sector in targeted geographies. Anticipated interventions include: • Strengthening judicial response to crimes that have a high impact on communities, such as gender￾based violence and attacks on human rights leaders; • Strengthening Peace Accord implementation through the greater capacity for implementation of the Victim’s Law, Land Restitution Policy, Truth Commission, the Disappeared Persons Search Unit, and the Attorney General’s Special Investigation Unit; • Strengthening community-based and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, with a particular focus on ethnic justice; expand behavioral change strategies for collective adherence to the rule of law, and engage and inform citizens on the purpose and availability of such services. The following are the objectives of the Inclusive Justice activity: • Objective 1: Justice sector actors (prosecutors, investigators, defenders, and others, as relevant) use improved techniques and practices that focus on resolving high-impact crimes, including homicides of human rights defenders and social leaders, victims of gender-based violence, and victims of the conflict, thus reducing impunity and increasing citizen justice confidence. • Objective 2: Community-based and state-led dispute resolution services, including indigenous justice and Afro-Colombian traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, equity conciliators, Justice Houses, and others, are strengthened to provide greater access to quality justice, particularly in conflict-affected areas. • Objective 3: Citizens, through behavior change strategies, increase their engagement in, oversight of, demand for, and trust in justice services, along with greater collective adherence to the rule of law. BASELINE PROJECT TASKS AND PROGRESS This chapter describes all the activities carried out to obtain the baseline information. As a first report was submitted on December 22, we divide this description into two periods: first, it describes all the information gathered from the beginning of the project up to December 20. Second, it illustrates the USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 4 progress made until January 26. In this way, readers of the first draft can keep track of what happened since then. ACTIVITIES FROM THE BEGINNING OF PROJECT TO DECEMBER 20, 2020 As described, we collected information for the baseline from two main sources: open sources and derechos de petición. First, we collected information for five indicators using open sources, largely on the relevant authorities’ website. Table 1 provides a list of indicators and sources for which we were able to retrieve relevant data from public sources. TABLE 1. DATA FROM OPEN SOURCES INDICATOR SOURCE 10 – Disappeared persons identified by PN, CTI, INML INML 18 – Afro-Colombian authorities exercising justice GOV.CO 28 – Rurality level DNP 32 – Financial performance DNP 33 – Hectares of coca fields ODC Secondly, derechos de petición is a legal instrument that entitles citizens to request information from public or private authorities under the Colombian Constitution. We used this tool to gain access to public databases and provide data for 25 indicators of the baseline. On December 20, we submitted 95 petitions. From these, 54 were filed to mayors’ offices in relevant municipalities, and 41 to national-level authorities. Derechos de petición should legally be responded to in 30 working days, according to article 5 of decree 491 of 2020, which extends petition response terms throughout the COVID -19 pandemic. By December 20, 37 requests were answered and 58 were still pending out of which, two from the Defensoría del Pueblo had their legal response time expired (see Table 2). TABLE 2. DEADLINES FOR DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN SUBMITTED ANSWERED EXPIRED 95 37 2 Out of the 37 responses, 20 were answered satisfactorily; 12 were answered insufficiently or inadequately, requiring clarifications or corrections; and five responses did not provide the data requested (see Table 3). TABLE 3. QUALITY OF QUESTIONS TYPE OF RESPONSE DESCRIPTION NUMBER Satisfactory Response gives requested data 20 5 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 3. QUALITY OF QUESTIONS TYPE OF RESPONSE DESCRIPTION NUMBER Insufficient Response gives data that is not adequate for indicator 12 Incomplete Response does not provide at least some data requested 5 Total 37 CRITICAL MISSING INDICATORS By December 20, 58 derechos de petición had not been answered, despite multiple telephone and email follow-ups. But not all derechos de petición were critical, as many have more than one source of information. Only five responses in which the authority did not provide us with the data requested were critical, particularly for indicators 13, 18, and 27. • Fiscalía General de la Nación (FGN) – Indicator 27. FGN provided data on suspects who are members of armed groups according to the Sistema Penal Oral Acusatorio – Sistema de Información, SPOA, which is different from what we requested, armed groups' presence in relevant localities. The data we requested is still due for the Ejército Nacional and four non-governmental organizations. • Ministerio del Interior- Indicator 18: The Ministerio del Interior replied that there is no centralized registry for Afro-Colombian authorities exercising justice, but rather a generic national registry of Afro Community Councils (NARP). For both indigenous and Afro-Colombians, we have data about the communities that can provide justice services but not of those that effectively do so. • Various sources- Indicator 13. The main idea for this indicator was to estimate the distance between dispute resolution authorities and the main urban municipal zones. We asked for the coordinates for courts, police inspections, family police stations, and the Defensorías, to different authorities like the CSJ, ICBF, Ministerio de Justicia, Defensoría del Pueblo, Mayors’ offices, and the FGN. So far, all authorities have replied with addresses instead of coordinates. For this reason, we filed an additional derecho de petición to the IGAC trying to get complementary information to calculate these distances. We have not received a response to this last request. DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN TO MAYORS’ OFFICES Most of our petitions were directed to Mayors’ Offices, asking for data for indicators 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25. These requests were critical for indicators 12, 21, and 25 because local authorities’ data was their only source of information. For variables 15, 19, and 20 we have complementary sources. By December 20, only 16 mayors’ offices answered to our derechos de peticion, out of which two requested to extend the deadline for reply. Local authorities had a slower response rate and their deadline expired on December 23. However, we followed-up through phone calls and emails with all mayors’ offices, which accelerated some responses. Nonetheless, we noticed some resistance from some other local officials, which is somewhat expected, as local authorities have scarce information records and are not used to the same transparency standards as national agencies. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 6 DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES Out of 41 petitions sent to national agencies, up to December 20 we received 21 responses. In turn, out of the 20 derechos de petición that were due, we had complementary information for 13 petitions, either from open sources or from information provided by other authorities. The remaining seven were considered critical because the data requested was the only source of information for relevant indicators. Table 4 illustrates these critical petitions: TABLE 4. CRITICAL UNREPLIED DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AGENCY INDICATORS Defensoría del Pueblo 11, 29, 19 Unidad de Restitución de Tierras 6, 7, 8 Ministerio de Justicia 13, 19, 20, 21, 22 regarding alternative dispute resolution mechanisms Misión de Verificación de la ONU 1 regarding social leaders and human rights defenders Ejército Nacional 27 Justicia Penal Militar 34, 35 Consejo Superior de la Judicatura 13 All agencies above told us they were working on the responses, except for the Defensoría del Pueblo, whom we were unable to contact. Also, according to Justicia Penal Militar officials, the data we requested was collected manually and they did not have any digitized information. Hence, they were going to take longer to respond. To finalize, Table 5 below describes all derechos de petición filed, the indicators they pertain to, response dates and information, as well as the name of the files. 7 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 5. DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN – AUTHORITY, INDICATOR, FILING, AND DUE DATE AUTHORITY INDICATOR FILING DATE DEADLINE ANSWER DATE PETITIONS: FILE NAME RESPONSES: FILENAME DP 15 30/10/2020 16/12/2020 No DP Defensoría brigadas.docx N/A CERAC 27 10/11/2020 24/12/2020 19-nov DP CERAC.docx Rta cerac ind 27.png INDEPAZ 27 10/11/2020 24/12/2020 3/12/2020 DP INDEPAZ.docx Rta indepaz ind 27 IGAC 13 10/12/2020 24/12/2020 No DP Agustín Codazzi.docx N/A Alcaldías 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 9/11/2020 23/12/2020 16 de 54 Mayors' offices (folder) Caldono.pdf Caloto.pdf Condoto.pdf Corinto.pdf El tambo.pdf Jambalo.pdf Miranda.pdf Puerto asis.pdf Puerto leguizamo.pdf RIosucio part 1. Pdf Riosucio part 2.pdf San jacinto.pdf San miguel.pdf Santander de quilichao.pdf Toribío.pdf Unguia.png Valle del guamuez.pdf CINEP 27 10/11/2020 24/12/2020 24/11/2020 DP CINEP.docx Rta Cinep ind 27. Pdf Consejos seccionales de la Judicatura 3 8/12/2020 10/02/12 (vacaciones colectivas) No DP Consejos Seccionales (folder): DP CSJ Bolivar y Córdoba.docx DP CSJ Cauca.docx DP CSJ Narino y Putumayo.docx DP CSJ Sucre.docx DP CSJ Antioquia.docx DP CSJ Chocó.docx N/A USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 8 TABLE 5. DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN – AUTHORITY, INDICATOR, FILING, AND DUE DATE AUTHORITY INDICATOR FILING DATE DEADLINE ANSWER DATE PETITIONS: FILE NAME RESPONSES: FILENAME CSJ 11, 22 29/10/2020 15/12/2020 13/11/2020 DP CSJ Oferta.PDF Csj ind 11 y 22. Pdf CSJ 15 29/10/2020 15/12/2020 1/12/20 DP CSJ Brigadas.pdf Csj ind 15.pdf CSJ 13 6/11/2020 13/01/21 13-nov DP CSJ georreferenciación.pdf Csj ind 13. Pdf CSJ 12 16/11/2020 20/01/2020 ( No DP CSJ Presupuesto.docx N/A DNP 30 11/11/2020 26/12/2020 30/11/2020 DP DNP.docx Dnp ind 30. Pdf DP 11, 22, 19 30/10/2020 16/12/2020 No DP Defensoría oferta. Docx N/A EN 27 10/11/2020 24/12/2020 No DP Ejército Nacional.docx N/A FGN 4, 17 30/10/2020 16/12/2020 30/11/2020 DP Fiscalía datos criminalidad.pdf Fgn ind 4 y 17.pdf FGN 11, 14, 15 30/10/2020 16/12/2020 24/11/2020 DP Fiscalía Oferta.pdf Fgn ind 15. Pdf fgn ind 11 y 14. Pdf FGN 1, 2 30/10/2020 16/12/20 25/11/2020 DP Fiscalía procesos penales.pdf Fgn ind 1 y 2.pdf FGN 13, 22, 27 9/11/2020 14/01/2020 30/11/2020 DP Fiscalía varios datos.pdf Fgn ind 13.pdf Fgn ind 22 y 27 FGN 9 5/11/2020 12/01/2021 No DP Fiscalía GRUBE.PDF N/A ICBF 13 6/11/2020 22/12/2020 3/12/2020 DP ICBF.pdf Icbf ind 13. Pdf INML 9 5/11/2020 21/12/2020 14/11/2020 DP Medicina Legal.pdf Inml ind 9. Pdf JPM 34, 35 10/11/2020 24/12/2020 No DP Justicia Penal Militar.docx N/A MinInterior 15 31/10/2020 16/12/2020 9/11/2020 DP Miniterior brigadas.docx Mininterior ind 15.pdf 9 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 5. DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN – AUTHORITY, INDICATOR, FILING, AND DUE DATE AUTHORITY INDICATOR FILING DATE DEADLINE ANSWER DATE PETITIONS: FILE NAME RESPONSES: FILENAME MinInterior 16, 18 10/11/2020 24/12/2020 24/11/2020 DP Miniterior comunidades étnicas. Docx Mininterior ind 16.pdf MinJusticia 15 3/11/2020 17/12/2020 11/12/2020 DP Minjusticia brigadas.docx Minjusticia ind 15.pdf MinJusticia 16, 18 6/11/2020 22/12/2020 13/11/2020 DP MinJusticia Comunidades etnicas.pdf Minjusticia ind 16 y 18.pdf MinJusticia 13, 19, 20, 21, 22 6/11/2020 22/12/2020 No DP Minjusticia oferta MASC. pdf N/A MinTIC 31 10/11/2020 24/12/2020 23/11/2020 DP MinTIc.dpcx Mintic ind 31.png PARES 27 10/11/2020 24/12/2020 No DP PARES.docx N/A PGN 3 10/11/2020 24/12/2020 25/11/2020 DP Procuraduría.docx Pgn ind 3. Pdf PN 11 30/10/2020 16/12/2020 18/11/2020 DP Policía judicial Oferta.docx Pn ind 11. Pdf PN 13 5/11/2020 26/11/20 29/12/2020/ 20/01/2021 No DP Policía Nacional.pdf N/A UBDP 13 5/11/2020 21/12/2020 24/11/2020 DP UBDP.pdf Ubdp ind 9. Pdf UN 1 9/11/2020 23/12/2020 No DP Mision de Verificación.pdf N/A UAEGRT 15 25/11/2020 8/01/2021 No DP URT brigadas.docx N/A UAEGRT 6, 7, 8 25/11/2020 8/01/2021 No DP Restitución de tierras.pdf N/A USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 10 UPDATE FROM DECEMBER 20, 2020 TO JANUARY 26, 2021 This section provides an update on the status of the petition rights and critical indicators from December 20, 2020 to January 26, 2021. TWO NEW PETITIONS Originally, we filed a petition to the UN Verification Mission asking for homicides committed against human rights defenders and social leaders in 2020 that were in a process of verification. They answered that the Verification Mission oversees monitoring former FARC-EP combatants’ homicides, not social leaders and that the competent body to answer this petition is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia. Therefore, we filed a new petition directed to the latter on December 28. In addition, we sent a request of information to the Ministerio de Justicia asking for relevant data from alternative dispute resolution (ADR) providers, such as Comisarías de Familia, Casas de Justicia, Centros de Convivencia Ciudadana, Personerías Municipales, etc. The Ministry only provided data from Centros de Convivencia Ciudadana and Casas de Justicia, clarifying that the competent body to provide information for Comisarías de Familia is the Procuraduría General de la Nación (PGN). Then, we decided to file the same petition to the PGN, which has already been answered with information exclusively for 2018. RESPONSES FROM NATIONAL AUTHORITIES To date, out of 97 petitions, we received 66 responses. From December 20, 2020 to January the 26, 2021, we received 29 responses, 12 from national authorities and 17 from mayors’ offices. Table 6 shows the 12 national agencies that responded to the derechos de petición and their correspondent indicators. TABLE 6. NATIONAL AUTHORITIES. ANSWERED PETITIONS FROM DECEMBER 20 TO JANUARY 26 AGENCY INDICATORS FGN 27 DP 15 DP 11,22, 19 PN 10 MinJusticia 13, 19, 20, 21, 22 CSJ Antioquia 3 CSJ Putumayo y Nariño 3 UAEGRT 15 UAEGRT 6, 7, 8 11 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 6. NATIONAL AUTHORITIES. ANSWERED PETITIONS FROM DECEMBER 20 TO JANUARY 26 AGENCY INDICATORS PGN 13, 19, 20, 21, 22 AC 13 EN 27 Of the 12 responses, only four were satisfactory from Ministerio de Justicia, Unidad Administrativa Especial para la Gestión de Restitución de Tierras (UAEGRT) and PGN. Authorities such as Policia Nacional (PN) and Consejo Superior de la Judicatura (CSJ) did not have the requested information, and the petition filed to IGAC did not provide the data necessary for indicator 13. The petition sent to FGN; the two petitions sent to DP; and the derecho de petición sent to EN were answered unsatisfactorily. We asked for data disaggregated by municipalities but in these three cases, they replied with data organized by departments. TABLE 7. QUALITY OF RESPONSES TYPE OF RESPONSE DESCRIPTION NUMBER Satisfactory Response gives requested data 4 Insufficient Response gives data that is not adequate for indicator 4 Incomplete Response does not provide at least some data requested 4 Total 12 CRITICAL MISSING INDICATORS – INSUFFICIENT OR INADEQUATE DATA OR REPLIES In general, we received inadequate information for indicators 5, 13, 26, 27, 34, 35. This information remains critical, as they only have one source of information. • Fiscalía General de la Nación – Indicator 27. The FGN provided data on suspects who are members of armed groups according to the SPOA, which is different from what we requested, the presence of armed groups in relevant localities. On December 19, FGN provided data indicating the presence of armed groups by departamentos, and not by relevant municipalities, stating that it is the only disaggregation available. • Ejército Nacional – Indicator 27. This petition was our last resource to provide information for indicator 27. The EN rejected our petition, stating that the information requested about the non￾state actor's presence is confidential. • Various sources- Indicator 13. We originally asked for coordinates for dispute resolution providers to different authorities like the CSJ, ICBF, Ministerio de Justicia, Defensoría del Pueblo, Mayors’ offices, and the FGN. But their responses were not insufficient because the authorities replied with addresses instead of coordinates. We then filed a request to IGAC asking to provide complementary USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 12 data to measure the distance between dispute resolution providers and the main urban municipal zones. The IGAC responded that they could not provide this data because they have no competence in this topic. We disregarded this indicator because none of the authorities responded with pertinent data. • JPM- Indicators 34 and 35. JPM reported that it does not have information regarding cases, victims, and clearance rates for military crimes with a municipal specificity. • Victims Satisfaction Survey-Indicator 5. For indicators 5, 23, and 24 we used the information provided by the victims’ satisfaction survey hired by Panagora. As was stated from the beginning of the project, this survey is not representative on a municipal but regional level. We also found that due to the initial formulation of questions, indicator 5 had to be answered in the same way as indicator 24. We discarded indicator 5 for lack of specific information. • Electoral risk index-Indicator 26. This indicator was supposed to be built from open data sources, but we found that there is no available micro-data with the municipal specification. We discarded it for lack of specific information. CRITICAL UNREPLIED DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN To this date, the following petitions remain unanswered: • CSJ- Indicator 12 (budget). The response term for this petition expired on January 20. We have not received an answer despite emails and phone calls. • UN HCHR- Indicator 1(human rights defenders in process). This petition was submitted on December 28. • FGN – Indicator 10 (disappeared people). The response term for this petition expired on January 12. We have not received an answer despite emails and phone calls. RESPONSES FROM MAYORS’ OFFICES As stated, most of our petitions are directed to mayors’ offices, asking for data for indicators 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25. Although the deadline for these replies expired on December 23, we have so far received a total of 33 responses out of 54 derechos de petición. QUALITY OF RESPONSES FROM MAYORS’ OFFICES From December 20 to January 26, we received 17 responses. Overall, the replies from mayors’ offices have provided insufficient information (see Table 8). Only four responses provide sufficient data. TABLE 8. QUALITY OF RESPONSES TYPE OF RESPONSE DESCRIPTION NUMBER Satisfactory Response gives requested data 4 Insufficient Response gives data that is not adequate for indicator 13 13 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 8. QUALITY OF RESPONSES TYPE OF RESPONSE DESCRIPTION NUMBER Incomplete Response does not provide at least some data requested 0 Total 17 CRITICAL MISSING INDICATORS Our missing information is critical for indicators 12, 21, and 25 because local authorities are their only source of information. • Indicator 12. The main idea for this indicator was to ask mayors’ offices for information related to the budget assigned to justice services, and the percentage that it represents on their general budget for periods 2016-2020. Of the 33 responses received, nine mayors have relevant data, out of which only four provided information regarding the percentage that it represents versus the general budget. Six municipalities only provided data on the budget for fiscal year 2020 because, due to the change of government, they do not have access to data from the previous periods. Five mayors’ offices answered that they do not have a budget assigned for justice activities. In the remaining cases, the mayors’ offices did not provide any data. Given the heterogeneity of the responses and the deficiencies in the recording of these data, we conclude that we have insufficient information to give any content to this indicator. We also requested complementary information from the CSJ regarding the public funds allocated for justice in each municipality, but they have not yet answered. • Indicators 20 and 21. For these indicators, we asked local authorities for community-led dispute resolution mechanisms. Out of 33, eight municipalities responded that they had conciliatory committees of community action boards, which constitute mechanisms of a civil nature. Three responded that the indigenous councils performed this function. Four did not respond to our request. The rest of the mayors’ offices assured that there are no such mechanisms in their municipalities. As these are informal justice mechanisms, their quantification is more difficult. We consider that this information is insufficient to build an indicator. • Indicator 25. We asked local authorities about the existence of public interventions that increase social capital, community involvement, and engagement. Five mayors denied having this type of program and six did not answer this question. The remaining 22 were not specific or clear enough about the existence of such programs. Given the heterogeneity of the responses and the deficiencies in data recording, we conclude that we have insufficient information for this indicator. TABLE 9. NEW RESPONSES AND PETITIONS FROM DECEMBER 20 to JANUARY 26 AUTHORITY INDICATOR FILING DATE DEADLINE ANSWER DATE PETITIONS: FILENAME RESPONSES: FILENAME Alcaldías 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 9/11/2020 23/12/2020 33 out of 54 Carmen de bolivar. pdf Carmen de bolivar parte 2. pdf Carmen del darien.pdf USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 14 TABLE 9. NEW RESPONSES AND PETITIONS FROM DECEMBER 20 to JANUARY 26 AUTHORITY INDICATOR FILING DATE DEADLINE ANSWER DATE PETITIONS: FILENAME RESPONSES: FILENAME Chalan.pdf Barbacoas.pdf Dabeiba.pdf El Charco.pdf Francisco pizarro.pdf Montelíbano.jpg Mutatá.pdf Necoclí.pdf Puerto guzman.pdf Roberto payán.pdf San Juan de uré.pdf San Juan nepomuceno.pdf Tierralta Parte 1.pdf Tierralta Parte 2..pdf Tierralta parte 3.pdf Valencia.pdf Villagarzón.pdf MinJusticia 13, 19, 20, 21, 22 6/11/2020 22/12/2020 22/12/2020 DP Minjusticia oferta MASC. pdf Minjusticia IND 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.pdf FGN 13, 22, 27 9/11/2020 14/01/2020 30/11/2020 20/12/2020 DP Fiscalía varios datos.pdf Fgn ind 13.pdf Fgn ind 22 y 27.pdf Fgn ind. 27 corrección. pdf Agustin Codazzi 13 10/12/2020 24/12/2020 22/12/2020 DP Agustin Codazzi.docx AC ind 13.jpg PN 10 5/11/2020 26/11/20 29/12/2020 / 20/01/2021 21/12/2020 DP Policía Nacional.pdf Policia Nacional Ind 10.pdf UN 1 29/12/2020 11/02/2021 No DP Alto Comisionado.pdf N/a UAEGRT 15 25/11/2020 8/01/2021 12/01/2021 DP URT brigadas.docx N/a UAEGRT 6, 7, 8 25/11/2020 8/01/2021 12/01/2021 DP Restitución de tierras.pdf N/a PGN 13, 19, 20, 21, 22 28/12/2020 10/02/2021 13/01/2021 DP Procuraduría comisarías.pdf Procuraduria comisarias.pdf Consejo seccional de la Judicatura 3 8/12/2020 10/02/12 (vacaciones colectivas) 19/12/2020 DP CSJ Nariño y CSJ Nariño y Putumayo.jpg 15 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 9. NEW RESPONSES AND PETITIONS FROM DECEMBER 20 to JANUARY 26 AUTHORITY INDICATOR FILING DATE DEADLINE ANSWER DATE PETITIONS: FILENAME RESPONSES: FILENAME Putumayo y Nariño Putumayo.docx Consejo seccional de la Judicatura de Antioquia 3 8/12/2020 10/02/12 (vacaciones colectivas) 9/12/2020 DP CSJ Antioquia.docx CSJ Antioquia rta.jpg EN 27 10/11/2020 26/01/2021 26/01/2021 DP Ejercito Nacional,docx EN IND 27.pdf MISSED AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: AGENDA FOR FUTURE PROJECTS During the completion of this project, we identified several critical information gaps about access to justice in the Colombian regions. The lack of this information gravely undermines the ability to have a basic useful understanding about the judicial needs of the population and the ability of the Colombian State to provide effective judicial services. For this reason, the generation, collection and organization of data, should, in itself, constitute an improvement to access to justice policies. To expand the availability of quality information should hence be one priority for any future project regarding access to justice in Colombia. The information gaps that we consider critical, are divided in three: first, we discarded some indicators in the planning phase of this project, when we did not find available sources to formulate an indicator. Three main gaps stand out here: Victimization prevalence, underreporting levels about judicial needs, and satisfaction levels about judicial services. There are no comprehensive or regional surveys that give a systematic idea about crime victimization prevalence in rural areas in Colombia. Colombian authorities assume, incorrectly, that crime trends are reasonably connected to offence complaint trends with the Police or the FGN. The proportion of victims that file a complaint has its own sources of volatility, independent from crime levels. From crime￾specific studies, urban research2, or anecdotal evidence, we know that the level of under-reporting is high. But we know little about how high it is and how it changes. More generally, information about how much people use the official justice system is scarce. In Colombia, this is crucial to understand, for example, the degree of legitimacy of judicial authorities, or the level of adherence to the rule of law. Several investigations have shown that in many territories shadow citizenship from armed actors offers conflict resolution mechanisms that compete with public ones, and, on occasions, are the prevalent providers of these services.3 Knowing the way the justice 2 Blattman Christopher, Duncan Gustavo, Lessing Benjamin, Tobón Santiago and Mesa-Mejía Juan Pablo. Gobierno criminal en Medellín: panorama general del fenómeno y evidencia empírica sobre cómo enfrentarlo. Nota de Política CIEF No01. Universidad Eafit. 21 de octubre de 2020 3 Among many others, see Idler Annette. Borderland Battles: Violence, Crime, and Governance at the Edges of Colombia's War. Oxford University Press. 2019 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 16 system works, without understanding how much it really is an effective provider of justice, results in an incomplete picture. In addition, there is no available data on citizen satisfaction of judicial services. We include for this project some specific data on gender violence (provided by Panagora). But there is no updated data about the satisfaction of the majority of legal needs, including all relevant criminal offences. This data is essential to propose and implement public policies that take into account the specific conditions of the Judicial system and other national and local agencies. This is particularly important in PDET municipalities, where State authorities lack basic levels of credibility. It is crucial to measure the levels to which public service providers are able to respond to public needs in satisfactory ways. A second group of information gaps results from indicators that we planned, assuming there was a minimal probability of accessing relevant information, for which we realized authorities did not have useful data. From petitions’ responses, we now know there are serious data holes for dispute resolution at the municipal level –for example we were not able to gather updated information on the number of Comisarias de Familia, municipal budgets for justice sector, geographical location for dispute resolution mechanisms, and basic case inventories of the military criminal jurisdiction (Justicia Penal Militar). Data from municipalities is very scarce, both on issues of formal justice and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. As explained in indicator 12, only a few local authorities answered our derecho de petición and, of those who responded, all did so incompletely. This lack of information may reveal several problems. For example, on the issue of budget levels for justice policies, lack of data can indicate an absence of prioritization for justice issues, a technical inability to disaggregate or organize the budget, or a mere lack of accountability from some Mayors’ offices. A similar situation occurred for indicators 20, 21 and 25 for which we received only a few answers from municipalities, all of which were incomplete and heterogenous, making it impossible to build a stable indicator. These are all serious shortcomings that should be addressed. Another issue for which authorities indicated a lack of information regards the criminal military jurisdiction. According to the Justicia Penal Militar’s reply to our follow up call, they do not even possess a basic inventory of cases, that allows them or the public any possibility to measure performance in investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by members of the armed forces while on active duty. The final answer to our questions stated there was no information for municipalities but only for departamentos. The credibility of the State in PDET regions is in constant competition against the regulatory power of illegal armed actors. An effective and impartial response to eventual crimes committed by public officials is essential to increase the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in these areas. Therefore, it is vital to improve the availability of data about criminal and disciplinary cases against members of the armed forces. A third information gap regards evaluation. Overcoming the scarcity of information not only concerns the lack of basic data, but also, the inability of the justice sector to provide rigorous data about the results of its projects and interventions. This is especially relevant for several international cooperation programs regarding justice reforms in Latin America, whose outcomes, in terms of improving access to justice and criminal justice performance, are uncertain. In addition to two-year, ex-post, evaluations, it appears necessary for cooperation programs to design ex-ante evaluation strategies, as an integral part of the formulation of new interventions. 17 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV A valuable tool to incorporate in commencing programs are impact evaluation strategies, that attempt to identify the causal relationship between interventions and their effects. This may be particularly useful for interventions for which their net impact is unclear, either because it is empirically uncertain, or because there are doubts about their relative benefits –compared to their costs. For example, it is unclear in Colombia if alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are more satisfactory for involved parties, compared to formal mechanisms. Or, similarly, if restorative criminal justice tools have better outcomes for victim’s satisfaction and recidivism levels, than traditional procedures. A rigorous measurement of these results would need, not only good analyses after some implementation time, but the application of impact evaluation mechanisms designed from the beginning. This is necessary, as these evaluation tools may change certain implementation conditions, including the possibility to randomize the subjects treated for some period. Evaluation strategies have to be though￾out together with the design of relevant interventions. They are methodologically more complex and expensive, however they may prove valuable to overcome the lack of useful empirical evidence as a foundation for justice policy decisions. An interesting example of this type of intervention was performed in 2016 at the FGN in Colombia when they evaluated the impacts of increased coordination, accountability, and leadership among teams responsible for homicide investigations in Colombia. They randomly assigned the investigations of 66% of the 1,683 homicides occurred in 2016 to new and interdisciplinary investigation teams. They found a statistically significant increase in the accusation and conviction rates for the treatment group relative to the control, among other findings. 4 From that moment the Prosecution Office started to extend the intervention to some of the regional offices and in 2020 made it mandatory to all of them. In general, the unavoidable scarcity of resources makes it impossible (and inefficient) to build a homogeneous and all-encompassing justice service supply for all municipalities. The information described in this chapter is necessary for a robust targeting exercise. Having public and systematic data on justice demand and services in PDET municipalities is in itself a way of prioritizing on this sector. BASELINE RESULTS This section provides the results for the access to justice baseline. It gives a basic characterization of each of the 28 indicators for which relevant information was collected, defining its content, sources, and reporting methodology, describing the factors according to which it is disaggregated, and presenting the main formulas in which it is expressed. Table 10 shows the planned indicators for which we collected at least some relevant information which informs the results we are reporting. 4 Collazos Daniela, Fergusson Leopoldo, La Rota Miguel, Mejía Daniel, Ortega Daniel. CSI in the tropics Experimental evidence of improved public service delivery through coordination. Serie Documentos Cede, 2020. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 18 TABLE 10. INDICATORS FOR WHICH WE HAVE DATA AND SHOW RESULTS INDICATOR NUMBER INDICATOR NAME RESULTS DECEMBER 20 RESULTS JANUARY 26 1 Cases or victims. Selected crimes Yes Yes 2 Clearance rates Yes Yes 3 Cases in Procuraduría General de la Nación (PGN) Yes Yes 4 Protection measures Yes Yes 5 Satisfaction levels of victims No No 6 Approved registration requests RTDAF No Yes 7 Registration requests RTDAF No Yes 8 Land restitution jurisdiction performance No Yes 9 Disappeared persons identified by the UBDP Yes Yes 10 Disappeared persons Yes Yes 11 Justice sector capabilities Yes Yes 12 Municipal budgets for the justice sector Yes Yes 13 Institutional Offer of Justice. Yes Yes 14 Remote criminal reporting Yes Yes 15 Access to justice mobile brigades. Yes Yes 16 Indigenous authorities providing justice services Yes Yes 17 Ordinary cases regarding ethnic groups Yes Yes 18 Afro-Colombian authorities exercising justice Yes Yes 19 Disputes by government-trained ADR Yes Yes 20 The offer of community-led ADR No No 21 Cases handled by community-led ADR mechanisms No No 22 Case input/output Yes Yes 23 Women victims of VBG I Yes Yes 24 Women victims of VBG II Yes Yes 25 Social capital No No 26 Electoral risk index No No 27 Organized crime and non-state actors’ presence. Yes Yes 19 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 10. INDICATORS FOR WHICH WE HAVE DATA AND SHOW RESULTS INDICATOR NUMBER INDICATOR NAME RESULTS DECEMBER 20 RESULTS JANUARY 26 28 Rurality level Yes Yes 29 Ethnic and women population Yes Yes 30 Multidimensional poverty index Yes Yes 31 Internet penetration Yes Yes 32 Financial performance (level of budgetary execution) Yes Yes 33 Coca Cultivation Yes Yes 34 Cases and victims by armed forces No No 35 Clearance rates for JPM jurisdiction No No 36 Cases or victims. Selected crimes Yes Yes In the following pages, we give an idea about the results, providing for each indicator an essential value for each municipality for 2019 (unless otherwise stated). Complete technical accounts are available in the reference sheets in Annex I. Annex II contains all baseline results, for all years and disaggregation levels. Finally, each indicator in this section contains a word of caution, regarding its most salient risks and limitations for collecting and interpreting the data. Again, Annex I provides a comprehensive description of methodological definitions and warnings. INDICATOR 1 - CASES OR VICTIMS. SELECTED CRIMES PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of cases and victims per municipality per year since 2016 for the following offenses: • Intentional homicide • Sexual violence offenses • Domestic violence • Feminicidio • Assault (Lesiones personales dolosas) These cases are, in turn, disaggregated by: • Human rights defenders and social leaders • Sex • Ethnic groups • Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) Table 11 shows an aggregated result for some offenses. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 20 TABLE 11. NUMBER OF CASES PER MUNICIPALITY – SELECTED CRIMES 2019 MUNICIPALITY SEXUAL OFFENCES FEMINICIDE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE PERSONAL INJURIES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Apartadó 114 1 71 310 314 Carepa 57 0 26 79 33 Dabeiba 21 0 16 10 2 Mutatá 23 0 20 4 14 Necoclí 28 0 9 33 18 Nechí 20 0 16 3 2 San Pedro De Uraba 24 0 6 22 15 Turbo 82 1 124 227 174 Vigía Del Fuerte 6 0 2 7 17 El Carmen De Bolívar 74 0 41 190 194 María La Baja 35 0 20 101 37 San Jacinto 16 0 13 44 25 San Juan Nepomuceno 20 0 4 79 24 Caldono 37 2 19 27 30 Caloto 13 0 53 78 85 Corinto 14 0 83 21 15 El Tambo 49 0 88 86 55 Jambaló 30 0 7 4 9 Miranda 29 0 47 81 41 Santander De Quilichao 129 7 219 308 301 Toribio 49 0 33 27 81 Montelíbano 53 0 93 38 28 Puerto Libertador 37 1 28 27 21 San Jose De Ure 8 0 26 0 1 Tierralta 79 0 36 87 54 21 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 11. NUMBER OF CASES PER MUNICIPALITY – SELECTED CRIMES 2019 MUNICIPALITY SEXUAL OFFENCES FEMINICIDE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE PERSONAL INJURIES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Valencia 20 0 11 8 11 Bojaya 5 0 7 8 1 Carmen Del Darien 1 0 14 7 0 Condoto 12 0 5 45 14 Istmina 26 0 27 71 33 Nóvita 5 0 5 9 4 Riosucio 33 0 60 22 17 Unguía 2 0 15 6 5 Barbacoas 23 1 50 32 22 El Charco 7 0 21 17 10 La Tola 1 0 5 0 2 Magüi 10 1 18 3 2 Olaya Herrera 7 0 31 4 0 Francisco Pizarro 2 0 6 1 0 Ricaurte 9 0 19 13 8 Roberto Payán 5 0 18 2 0 Santa Bárbara 8 0 19 2 1 Tumaco 103 3 410 197 196 Chalán 2 0 1 1 0 Ovejas 20 0 8 21 19 San Onofre 33 1 39 57 23 Orito 34 0 36 14 7 Puerto Asís 106 8 85 122 184 Puerto Caicedo 16 0 15 15 19 Puerto Guzmán 29 1 41 5 13 Leguízamo 37 0 25 35 30 San Miguel 6 0 27 5 19 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 22 TABLE 11. NUMBER OF CASES PER MUNICIPALITY – SELECTED CRIMES 2019 MUNICIPALITY SEXUAL OFFENCES FEMINICIDE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE PERSONAL INJURIES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Valle Del Guamuez 78 0 34 21 53 Villagarzón 24 0 18 27 12 SOURCE. SOURCES FOR THESE INDICATORS ARE REPLIES TO DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN FROM THE FGN. METHODOLOGY. This indicator includes information regarding annual total cases (noticias criminales) according to the Accusatory Oral Criminal System (for crimes under Law 906 of 2004 and Law 1098 of 2006) from 2016 to November 2020. Unit of analysis for intentional homicides is the victim and not the case. Additional information concerns reported crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants. MAIN CAUTIONS. The PIRS format includes detailed information on the methodology and technical limitations related to this indicator. Two crucial aspects to take into account while reporting or interpreting these data are: first, counts for all crimes underestimate true victimization levels, because of insufficient reporting to authorities. For most crimes, most victims do not file a complaint. And some homicides in violent localities are unknown to criminal justice authorities. We did not find national and systematic data about the level of unreported crime, but there are some crime-specific studies or local anecdotal accounts that confirm these issues. Second, some variables in SPOA suffer from insufficient recording and updating, especially regarding victims’ characteristics. For example, the gender variable, which is one of those with the best recording level, is not registered in six percent of cases in our database. INDICATOR 2 - CLEARANCE RATES PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of clearance rates for all crimes above, divided into three levels: i) investigation progress, ii) formal progress, and iii) conviction rates – against entries. This indicator shows the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in investigating and prosecuting serious violent crimes committed in PDET municipalities. Our results include the same desegregations of offenses and victims as for indicator 1. TABLE 12. CLEARANCE RATE – FORMAL PROGRESS. SELECTED CRIMES 2019 MUNICIPALITY INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE WOMEN % INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE MEN % SEXUAL OFFENCES % PERSONAL INJURIES % DOMESTIC VIOLENCE % Apartadó 20 37,7 20.37 7.44 18.12 Carepa 0 44 15.09 26.37 8.82 Dabeiba 0 0 19.05 31.82 71.43 Mutatá 0 5 15.79 25 28.57 Necoclí 0 12,5 22.58 38.24 27.78 23 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 12. CLEARANCE RATE – FORMAL PROGRESS. SELECTED CRIMES 2019 MUNICIPALITY INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE WOMEN % INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE MEN % SEXUAL OFFENCES % PERSONAL INJURIES % DOMESTIC VIOLENCE % Nechí 0 14,29 19.05 50 33.33 San Pedro De Uraba 0 0 31.82 30 18.75 Turbo 16,67 62,5 26.58 27.23 14.37 Vigía Del Fuerte 0 50 0 16.67 0 El Carmen De Bolívar 0 22,86 6.49 18.03 3.54 María La Baja 0 21,05 22.86 3.64 2.5 San Jacinto 0 0 7.14 11.36 8.33 San Juan Nepomuceno 0 0 27.27 27.16 16.67 Caldono 0 6,25 34.29 0 6.06 Caloto 20 6,25 7.69 15.49 27.27 Corinto 3,85 11.76 10 3.7 El Tambo 42,86 8,64 5.88 19.75 33.93 Jambaló 0 0 0 0 0 Miranda 11,11 15,79 13.33 32.47 10.53 Santander De Quilichao 40 13,92 21.37 4.64 14.72 Toribio 25 20,69 2.13 7.14 17.81 Montelíbano 25 17,28 26.42 11.48 29.41 Puerto Libertador 0 16 28.12 38.71 9.52 San Jose De Ure 0 11,54 0 0 0 Tierralta 40 22,58 14.08 9.41 25 Valencia 0 0 47.06 25 41.67 Bojaya 0 0 33.33 0 0 Carmen Del Darien 0 21,43 0 20 0 Condoto 0 0 20 51.22 41.67 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 24 TABLE 12. CLEARANCE RATE – FORMAL PROGRESS. SELECTED CRIMES 2019 MUNICIPALITY INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE WOMEN % INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE MEN % SEXUAL OFFENCES % PERSONAL INJURIES % DOMESTIC VIOLENCE % Istmina 50 24 37.5 8.22 54.55 Nóvita 0 0 0 11.11 25 Riosucio 0 14,29 10.34 17.39 10.53 Unguía 0 7,14 42.86 85.71 Barbacoas 12,5 4,76 21.74 47.06 0 El Charco 0 15,79 0 13.64 10 La Tola 0 25 0 0 0 Magüi 0 6,25 10 66.67 0 Olaya Herrera 0 3,7 0 0 Francisco Pizarro 0 0 50 0 0 Ricaurte 0 11,11 0 29.41 13.33 Roberto Payán 0 0 0 33.33 0 Santa Bárbara 0 27,78 0 0 0 Tumaco 11,76 17,11 21.36 7.94 42.69 Chalán 0 0 0 0 0 Ovejas 25 0 45 20 17.39 San Onofre 33,33 27,78 21.88 38.33 8.7 Orito 0 20,59 6.52 29.03 7.69 Puerto Asís 25 18,46 22.45 26.09 61.05 Puerto Caicedo 0 6,67 21.43 18.18 63.16 Puerto Guzmán 42,86 26,47 31.03 0 21.43 Leguízamo 0 9,09 20 35.14 24.14 San Miguel 25 30,43 0 4.55 14.81 Valle Del Guamuez 16,67 28,57 11.76 22.58 3.23 Villagarzón 0 20 30.43 16.28 32.14 SOURCE AND ACTIVITY RESULTS. SPOA INFORMATION SYSTEM REQUESTED THROUGH DERECHO DE PETICIÓN TO FGN. 25 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV METHODOLOGY. The data collected includes three measurements of performance: i) investigation progress rate that indicates in how many cases the prosecution has carried out relevant and significant acts that allow for the perpetrator to be identified; ii) the clearance rate or formal progress, a more demanding level that requires for a suspect to be formally identified and, normally, indicted, and iii) the judicial clearance rate or conviction rate compares total cases with those in which a conviction was achieved. The PIRS includes the specific judicial actions required for each level. MAIN CAUTIONS. All three clearance rate levels should be considered, as they point to different aspects of criminal justice performance, and vary significantly between crimes and regions, as Table 8 illustrates. In most municipalities, there is at least some clearance level for the crimes prioritized by the prosecution (sexual, domestic violence, and homicide), but in some others, investigation results are null. Also, as observations at the municipal level are few, these measurements are volatile. It is important to analyze the whole range of periods included for this baseline. Lastly, the same cautions described for Indicator I are relevant here, as they share the same source and measurement logic. INDICATOR 3 - CASES IN PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA NACIÓN (PGN) PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of cases in Procuraduría General de la Nación (PGN) related to allegations of abuses against human rights defenders and social leaders (disaggregated by status) and decisions (disaggregated by sanctions and acquittals). This indicator refers to the number of disciplinary proceedings accumulated from 2016 to November 2020 in PGN against public servants for disciplinary offenses committed against social leaders or human rights defenders. This indicator illustrates the service demand and performance of independent disciplinary procedures for specific wrongdoings by public officials in selected areas. TABLE 13. NUMBER OF CASES PER MUNICIPALITY. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. SELECTED YEARS MUNICIPALITY ACTIVE DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES INACTIVE DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES Apartado 0 1 Corinto 1 0 Francisco Pizarro 0 1 Miranda 1 0 Montelibano 1 0 Ricaurte 1 0 San Onofre 1 0 Santander De Quilichao 1 2 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 26 SOURCE. RESPONSE TO DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN FROM PGN METHODOLOGY. We received information from the PGN regarding cumulative proceedings, based on the PGN Information System, for disciplinary offenses committed against social leaders or human rights defenders from 2016 to November 2020. The information received is disaggregated by case status (active/inactive) and cases with closure decisions (archivo definitivo). All cases are consequently inactive. MAIN CAUTIONS. Reporting and updating in the PGN information systems (GEDIS4 and SIM5) is precarious. Recent changes may not be reflected. And data registrations and searches are not guided by uniform criteria and do not depend on standardized variables. Therefore, data depends excessively on circumstantial discretionary decisions by PGN officials. INDICATOR 4 - PROTECTION MEASURES PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of protection measures requested by prosecutors, and the number of protection measures granted or denied by judges in domestic violence proceedings. This indicator illustrates the institutional capacity of the criminal justice system to protect gender violence victims. TABLE 14. PROTECTION MEASURES REQUESTED, GRANTED, AND DENIED. 2019. MUNICIPALITY PROTECTION MEASURES REQUESTS PROTECTION MEASURES GRANTED PROTECTION MEASURES DENIED NO INFO ABOUT PROTECTION GRANTED OR DENIED Apartadó 5 3 0 2 Dabeiba 3 0 0 3 Mutatá 2 2 0 0 San Pedro De Uraba 3 0 0 3 El Carmen De Bolívar 2 0 0 2 San Juan Nepomuceno 7 0 0 7 Santander De Quilichao 2 1 0 1 Istmina 1 1 0 0 Montelíbano 1 0 0 1 Tumaco 4 4 0 0 Orito 6 0 0 6 Puerto Asís 75 19 0 56 Puerto Caicedo 11 1 0 10 Valle Del Guamuez 1 0 0 1 Villagarzón 3 3 0 0 27 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV SOURCE. SPOA-FGN. THESE INDICATORS ARE BASED ON REPLY FROM FGN. METHODOLOGY. Additional information relates to the ethnicity of the victim and the year of events (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020). MAIN CAUTIONS. The PIRS format includes detailed information on the methodology and technical limitations related to this indicator. In any case, it is important to take into account that the SPOA information system is not well fed and updated for variables including victims’ characteristics such as race or ethnicity. Also, these variables on protection measures give only a partial understanding of the State’s ability to protect victims. It excludes all victims that do not file a complaint. And most importantly, it does not take into account any value about the protection needs. For example, there is no data on the number of victims that request protection measures. So, the indicator does not give information about how well the criminal justice system responds to the demand for protection. Most of the protection measures are adopted by Comisarias de familia. But they were excluded, as there is no available data for their performance. INDICATOR 6 - APPROVED REGISTRATION REQUESTS RTDAF PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of Approval of Registro de Tierras Despojadas y Abandonadas Forzosamente (RTDAF). TABLE 15. MICRO-FOCUSED MUNICIPALITIES PER YEAR MUNICIPALITY YEAR OF MICRO￾FOCALIZATIONN 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Apartadó 2012 3 91 92 26 Carepa 2014 1 20 10 15 Dabeiba 2020 Mutatá 2012 13 21 28 18 15 Necoclí 2013 3 2 4 1 9 Nechí 2015 75 14 5 3 11 San Pedro De Uraba 2015 56 11 15 2 6 Turbo 2012 69 170 190 38 45 Vigia Del Fuerte No Microfocalizado El Carmen De Bolívar 2012 98 40 36 87 39 Maria La Baja 2012 47 17 27 22 8 San Jacinto 2012 106 96 77 39 3 San Juan Nepomuceno 2012 78 46 17 34 3 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 28 TABLE 15. MICRO-FOCUSED MUNICIPALITIES PER YEAR MUNICIPALITY YEAR OF MICRO￾FOCALIZATIONN 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Caldono 2017 4 4 Caloto 2017 3 3 Corinto 2016 1 1 3 El Tambo 2015 3 12 16 29 6 Jambaló 2017 1 Miranda 2020 Santander De Quilichao 2013 4 3 7 2 Toribío 2015 9 1 4 3 Montelíbano 2017 3 Puerto Libertador 2020 San José De Uré No Microfocalizado Tierralta 2014 26 3 3 29 14 Valencia 2012 29 18 40 45 5 Bojayá (Bellavista) No Microfocalizado Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 2017 Condoto No Microfocalizado Istmina 2019 Nóvita No Microfocalizado Riosucio 2012 25 40 58 21 15 Unguía 2018 Barbacoas 2019 1 1 El Charco 2020 La Tola 2020 Magüí (Payán) No Microfocalizado OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 2020 Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 2020 Ricaurte 2017 1 29 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 15. MICRO-FOCUSED MUNICIPALITIES PER YEAR MUNICIPALITY YEAR OF MICRO￾FOCALIZATIONN 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Roberto Payán (San José) 2020 Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 2020 Tumaco 2019 3 Chalán 2015 28 24 7 2 Ovejas 2012 6 21 6 8 San Onofre 2013 5 46 12 6 Orito 2016 4 87 49 62 31 Puerto Asís 2016 3 6 1 91 28 Puerto Caicedo 2016 7 21 65 34 25 Puerto Guzmán 2016 12 50 16 Puerto Leguízamo 2017 San Miguel 2012 37 12 29 58 19 Valle Del Guamuez 2012 54 64 76 116 28 Villagarzón 2012 13 31 60 47 19 SOURCE. RESPONSE FROM UNIDAD ADMINISTRATIVA ESPECIAL DE GESTIÓN DE RESTITUCIÓN DE TIERRAS DESPOJADAS (UAEGRTD) DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY. This indicator contains information regarding the first micro￾focused territory per municipality, starting in 2012, all the way to December 15, 2020. It measures as well, the number of administrative procedures that culminate with the registration in the RTDAF, again from 2012 to 2020. The victims of the armed conflict who were forced to abandon their lands are entitled to the restitution of their property. For that purpose, they must request the registration of their property to the UAEGRTD in the RTDAF. The UAEGRTD must receive all the requests, but only studies those that claim properties located in macro and micro-focused territories. A territory is macro-focused once the Ministerio de Defensa Nacional and the Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, decide that the location meets the security conditions required for effective restitution. Micro-focused locations refer to specific portions of land located inside a macro-focused territory where the UAEGRTD has decided that it is, in fact, viable to carry out an adequate registration. The UAERGTD only initiates the administrative restitution stage once the location has been micro-focused. This claim could culminate in three of the following substantial decisions: (i) no formal study initiation, ii) non-registration of the property in the registry, and (iii) registration of the property in the RTDAF, which enables the claimant to pass to the second stage of the restitution process. This indicator measures the claims that culminate with the registration. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 30 MAIN CAUTIONS. The PIRS format contains further explanation on the land restitution jurisdiction. INDICATOR 7- REGISTRATION REQUESTS RTDAF PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of requests for registration in the Registro de Tierras Despojadas y Abandonadas Forzosamente (RTDAF). TABLE 16. REGISTRATION REQUESTS PER MUNICIPALITY NOV. 2016-2020 MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Apartadó 58 52 45 27 14 Carepa 26 5 13 1 3 Dabeiba 20 14 5 7 7 Mutatá 40 33 50 18 5 Necoclí 41 51 36 18 11 Nechí 29 3 8 3 3 San Pedro De Uraba 58 7 45 15 2 Turbo 199 110 118 47 28 Vigia Del Fuerte 4 1 3 El Carmen De Bolívar 90 75 104 52 9 Maria La Baja 24 20 51 6 3 San Jacinto 44 49 15 3 5 San Juan Nepomuceno 40 16 9 3 1 Caldono 7 4 6 5 1 Caloto 5 7 1 1 2 Corinto 5 6 9 1 El Tambo 94 79 37 26 15 Jambaló 1 2 1 Miranda 2 Santander De Quilichao 1 1 Toribío 41 51 36 18 11 Montelíbano 15 20 6 5 3 Puerto Libertador 1 1 31 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 16. REGISTRATION REQUESTS PER MUNICIPALITY NOV. 2016-2020 MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 San José De Uré 2 3 Tierralta 1 2 Valencia 14 3 8 Bojayá 159 154 102 41 20 Carmen Del Darién 5 9 14 11 1 Condoto 1 1 4 1 1 Istmina 1 4 1 Nóvita 58 7 45 15 2 Riosucio 20 4 5 6 2 Unguía 1 2 2 Barbacoas El Charco 1 La Tola 1 1 2 1 Magüí 15 28 17 12 5 Olaya Herrera 57 13 25 2 1 Francisco Pizarro 1 Ricaurte 1 1 Roberto Payán 2 2 1 Santa Bárbara 1 5 1 Tumaco 1 2 Chalán 1 Ovejas 29 17 4 San Onofre 7 99 7 6 14 Orito 1 Puerto Asís Puerto Caicedo 2 1 Puerto Guzmán 2 3 Puerto Leguízamo 24 20 51 6 3 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 32 TABLE 16. REGISTRATION REQUESTS PER MUNICIPALITY NOV. 2016-2020 MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 San Miguel 5 2 3 1 Valle Del Guamuez 1 2 7 Villagarzón 5 14 7 5 1 SOURCE. RESPONSE FROM THE UAEGRTD. METHODOLOGY. This indicator measures the requests for registration in the RTDAF from 2012 to Nov. 2020 received by the UAEGRTD. As stated in indicator 6, the UAEGRTD must receive the registration requests but only studies those that claim properties located in macro and micro-focused territories. MAIN CAUTIONS. The PIRS contains further explanation on land restitution procedures. INDICATOR 8- LAND RESTITUTION JURISDICTION PERFORMANCE PLANNED INDICATOR. The performance rates for land restitution jurisdiction according to enrolment orders, cases brought to courts, court decisions, and effective restitutions. This indicator shows the effectiveness of land restitution efforts to restore claimed property rights. It measures the number of cases brought to land restitution courts according to the type of decision and the number of judicial decisions in which material restitution was carried out (restores, does not restore, compensates, and consultation stage). TABLE 17. NUMBER OF SENTENCES ISSUED BY LAND RESTITUTION JUDGES ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF DECISION, 2019. MUNICIPALITY PRESENTED REQUESTS JUDGMENTS ISSUED SENTENCES TO COMPENSATE SENTENCES THAT DO NOT RESTORE SENTENCES THAT RESTORE Apartadó 27 1 0 0 1 Carepa 5 0 0 0 0 Dabeiba 0 0 0 0 Mutatá 13 10 1 1 8 Necoclí 12 1 0 12 Nechí 7 11 0 0 11 San Pedro De Uraba 2 1 0 0 1 Turbo 32 9 1 1 8 Vigia Del Fuerte 0 0 0 0 El Carmen De Bolívar 34 14 1 1 13 33 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 17. NUMBER OF SENTENCES ISSUED BY LAND RESTITUTION JUDGES ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF DECISION, 2019. MUNICIPALITY PRESENTED REQUESTS JUDGMENTS ISSUED SENTENCES TO COMPENSATE SENTENCES THAT DO NOT RESTORE SENTENCES THAT RESTORE Maria La Baja 8 1 0 0 1 San Jacinto 21 1 0 0 1 San Juan Nepomuceno 14 4 0 0 4 Caldono 4 1 0 1 0 Caloto 3 0 0 0 0 Corinto 2 0 0 0 0 El Tambo 24 11 1 0 10 Jambaló 1 0 0 0 0 Miranda 0 0 0 0 Santander De Quilichao 6 3 1 0 2 Toribío 1 1 0 0 1 Montelíbano 0 0 0 0 Puerto Libertador 0 0 0 0 San José De Uré 0 0 0 0 Tierralta 15 4 1 0 3 Valencia 37 11 4 0 7 Bojayá (Bellavista) 0 0 0 0 Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 0 0 0 0 Condoto 0 0 0 0 Istmina 0 0 0 0 Nóvita 0 0 0 0 Riosucio 6 0 0 0 0 Unguía 0 0 0 0 Barbacoas 1 0 0 0 0 El Charco 0 0 0 0 La Tola 0 0 0 0 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 34 TABLE 17. NUMBER OF SENTENCES ISSUED BY LAND RESTITUTION JUDGES ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF DECISION, 2019. MUNICIPALITY PRESENTED REQUESTS JUDGMENTS ISSUED SENTENCES TO COMPENSATE SENTENCES THAT DO NOT RESTORE SENTENCES THAT RESTORE Magüí 0 0 0 0 Olaya Herrera 0 0 0 0 Francisco Pizarro 0 0 0 0 Ricaurte 1 0 0 0 0 Roberto Payán 0 0 0 0 Santa Bárbara 0 0 0 0 Tumaco 0 0 0 0 Chalán 1 1 0 1 0 Ovejas 11 3 0 0 3 San Onofre 8 0 0 0 0 Orito 27 1 1 0 0 Puerto Asís 47 0 0 0 0 Puerto Caicedo 24 1 0 0 1 Puerto Guzmán 12 0 0 0 0 Puerto Leguízamo 0 0 0 0 San Miguel 24 1 0 0 1 Valle Del Guamuez 35 6 3 0 3 Villagarzón 22 0 0 0 0 INDICATOR 9 - DISAPPEARANCE EVENTS DOCUMENTED BY THE UBDP. PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of disappeared persons documented by the UBDP. This indicator shows the number of disappearance events that took place as part of the armed conflict before December 2016. It illustrates the level of this violent repertory during armed conflict and the degree of challenge that transitional justice and ordinary authorities must deal with victims’ identification and families’ satisfaction. TABLE 18. NUMBER OF DISAPPEARANCE EVENTS PER MUNICIPALITY BY 2016 MUNICIPALITY DISAPPEARANCE EVENTS Apartadó 65 35 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 18. NUMBER OF DISAPPEARANCE EVENTS PER MUNICIPALITY BY 2016 MUNICIPALITY DISAPPEARANCE EVENTS Carepa 4 Dabeiba 40 Mutatá 13 Necoclí 7 Nechí 2 San Pedro De Uraba 6 Turbo 70 Vigia Del Fuerte 2 El Carmen De Bolívar 25 Maria La Baja 4 San Jacinto 5 San Juan Nepomuceno 5 Caldono 14 Caloto 1 Corinto 5 El Tambo 5 Jambaló 0 Miranda 3 Santander De Quilichao 11 Toribío 4 Montelíbano 2 Puerto Libertador 2 San José De Uré 0 Tierralta 30 Valencia 7 Bojayá (Bellavista) 0 Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 1 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 36 TABLE 18. NUMBER OF DISAPPEARANCE EVENTS PER MUNICIPALITY BY 2016 MUNICIPALITY DISAPPEARANCE EVENTS Condoto 0 Istmina 6 Nóvita 2 Riosucio 36 Unguía 5 Barbacoas 36 El Charco 5 La Tola 1 Magüí (Payán) 1 OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 5 Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 1 Ricaurte 3 Roberto Payán (San José) 2 Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 0 Tumaco 102 Chalán 1 Ovejas 18 San Onofre 36 Orito 5 Puerto Asís 48 Puerto Caicedo 6 Puerto Guzmán 10 Puerto Leguízamo 13 San Miguel 8 Valle Del Guamuez 25 Villagarzón 6 SOURCE. RESPONSE TO DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN FROM UBDP 37 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV METHODOLOGY. We originally planned and requested information regarding the number of disappeared persons and disappeared persons identified per year. But the UBDP did not respond with aggregate information before 2016. Also, their database contains information about disappearance events rather than disappeared persons, but they did not clarify the difference between disappeared persons and disappearance events. Regarding the identification of victims, the UBPD response stated that no recovered body by the UBDP has been identified to date. MAIN CAUTIONS. The PIRS format includes detailed information on the methodology and technical limitations related to this indicator. However, readers should take into account that statistics provided by the unit do not represent the total cases of disappearance. Other databases from FGN or the Police contain other disappearance events and victims. Also, we do not have enough information about the unit of analysis used by the UBDP, as they do not explain what a disappearance event is in comparison to a disappeared person. We are asking for clarification on this matter. INDICATOR 10 - DISAPPEARED PERSONS PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of disappeared persons identified by PN, CTI, or INML. This indicator shows the number of disappearance persons from 2016. It illustrates the level of this violent repertory, and the degree of challenge authorities must deal with victims’ identification and families’ satisfaction. TABLE 19. DISAPPEARED PERSONS IDENTIFIED BY THE INML IN 2019 MUNICIPALITY MEN WOMEN TOTAL Apartadó 5 6 11 Carepa Dabeiba Mutatá Necoclí 0 1 1 Nechí 0 1 1 San Pedro De Uraba Turbo 1 1 2 Vigia Del Fuerte El Carmen De Bolívar Maria La Baja San Jacinto USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 38 TABLE 19. DISAPPEARED PERSONS IDENTIFIED BY THE INML IN 2019 MUNICIPALITY MEN WOMEN TOTAL San Juan Nepomuceno 2 0 2 Caldono 1 0 1 Caloto Corinto 3 1 4 El Tambo 0 1 1 Jambaló Miranda 0 1 1 Santander De Quilichao 2 2 4 Toribío 2 0 2 Montelíbano 0 1 1 Puerto Libertador San José De Uré Tierralta Valencia Bojayá (Bellavista) Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) Condoto 1 0 1 Istmina 2 0 2 Nóvita Riosucio 1 0 1 Unguía Barbacoas 2 0 2 El Charco La Tola Magüí (Payán) 1 0 1 OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 1 0 1 Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 39 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 19. DISAPPEARED PERSONS IDENTIFIED BY THE INML IN 2019 MUNICIPALITY MEN WOMEN TOTAL Ricaurte Roberto Payán (San José) Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 3 0 3 Tumaco 12 5 17 Chalán Ovejas San Onofre Orito Puerto Asís 6 1 7 Puerto Caicedo Puerto Guzmán Puerto Leguízamo 2 0 2 San Miguel 1 0 1 Valle Del Guamuez Villagarzón METHODOLOGY. Originally, this indicator was designed to include the total number of missing persons identified each year from 2016 in Colombia. In theory, the INML has an information system that unifies the data of all authorities that have identification laboratories. In effect, all authorities use this system. But information is not systematically updated, causing some differences in the data. For this reason, we requested information from each of all agencies with identification laboratories (ML, PN, and CTI). But at the closing date of the report, we only used the public information from INML. The PN reported that it does not have this information with a Municipal specificity. Information from the Prosecutor's Office will ideally be included in the January update. MAIN CAUTIONS. The PIRS format includes detailed information on the methodology and technical limitations related to this indicator. Two crucial aspects to take into account are: first, counts for all crimes underestimate true victimization levels, because of insufficient reporting. Many family members of disappeared persons do not file a complaint. There is no systemic data as to the levels of underreporting. Second, the disaggregation of tasks and information in at least four different authorities renders it difficult to build a complete picture of disappearance levels and their characteristics in Colombia. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 40 UPDATE. We have not received a response from the Prosecution Office. On the other hand, the PN responded that they do not have a database in this regard. INDICATOR 11 – JUSTICE SECTOR CAPABILITIES PLANNED INDICATOR. The number and rates of prosecutors, judges, court assistants, criminal investigators, and public defendants, family commissioners, measured according to types of prosecutors and judges, caseload and types of offense, population, and Sq. km. This indicator shows basic supply capacity for public justice services, both in nominal and relative terms. TABLE 20: NUMBER OF COURTS, PER CAPITA RATE OF JUDGES, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS, PROSECUTORS, AND ASSISTANT TO PROSECUTORS 2020. MUNICIPALITY COURTS JUDGE’S RATE (per 10,000 INHABITANTS) PROSECUTORS PROSECUTOR ASSISTANTS Apartado 13 1.01766 10 7 Barbacoas 4 0.707639 2 2 Bojaya 1 0.811293 0 0 Caldono 1 0.239406 0 1 Caloto 4 1.323802 1 2 Carepa 1 0.19553 1 1 Carmen Del Darien 1 0.512584 0 0 Chalan 1 2.172024 0 0 Condoto 1 0.808604 1 1 Corinto 1 0.393082 1 1 Dabeiba 3 1.276107 2 2 El Carmen De Bolivar 8 0.964254 5 2 El Charco 1 0.443459 2 1 El Tambo 1 0.371962 2 1 Francisco Pizarro 1 0.706314 0 0 Istmina 6 1.947673 4 4 Jambalo 1 0.538561 0 La Tola 1 1.340483 0 0 Magui 1 0.391497 0 0 Maria La Baja 1 0.206369 1 0 41 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 20: NUMBER OF COURTS, PER CAPITA RATE OF JUDGES, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS, PROSECUTORS, AND ASSISTANT TO PROSECUTORS 2020. MUNICIPALITY COURTS JUDGE’S RATE (per 10,000 INHABITANTS) PROSECUTORS PROSECUTOR ASSISTANTS Miranda 2 0.623403 2 2 Montelibano 4 0.465739 3 2 Mutata 1 0.694975 0 0 Nechi 1 0.365577 0 0 Necocli 1 0.226665 1 0 Novita 1 1.098298 0 0 Olaya Herrera 1 0.396668 0 0 Orito 1 0.258104 1 2 Ovejas 1 0.426694 1 1 Puerto Asis 9 1.190281 14 13 Puerto Caicedo 1 0.624727 0 0 Puerto Guzman 1 0.27274 0 0 Puerto Leguizamo 1 0.339052 0 0 Puerto Libertador 1 0.2295 2 2 Ricaurte 1 0.997158 1 1 Riosucio 4 1.62949 2 3 Roberto Payan 1 0.787774 0 0 San Jacinto 1 0.407299 0 0 San Jose De Ure 1 0.723903 0 0 San Juan Nepomuceno 1 0.259545 1 2 San Miguel 1 1.029124 2 1 San Onofre 1 0.19566 1 2 San Pedro De Uraba 1 0.311071 1 1 Santa Barbara 1 3.020692 0 0 Santander De Quilichao 10 0.884948 19 12 Tierralta 1 0.105067 4 3 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 42 TABLE 20: NUMBER OF COURTS, PER CAPITA RATE OF JUDGES, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS, PROSECUTORS, AND ASSISTANT TO PROSECUTORS 2020. MUNICIPALITY COURTS JUDGE’S RATE (per 10,000 INHABITANTS) PROSECUTORS PROSECUTOR ASSISTANTS Toribio 1 0.272524 1 0 Tumaco 18 0.622442 21 19 Turbo 11 0.768102 5 6 Unguia 1 0.77991 1 0 Valencia 1 0.275156 0 0 Valle Del Guamuez 1 0.288517 2 2 Vigia Del Fuerte 1 1.061233 0 0 Villagarzon 2 0.830013 1 1 Also, we collected from DNP information about alternative mechanisms. These are not up to date, and the Ministry of Justice, who should have up-to-date information has not responded to our requests for information. TABLE 21: NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVE JUDICIAL MECHANISMS PER MUNICIPALITY 2016. MUNICIPALITY JUSTICE HOUSES CONCILIATION CENTER COEXISTENCE CENTERS MUNICIPAL FAMILY AFFAIRS OFFICES POLICE INSPECTIONS TOTAL Apartadó 1 1 0 1 1 4 Carepa 0 0 0 0 1 1 Dabeiba 0 0 0 1 1 2 Mutatá 0 0 0 1 1 2 Necoclí 0 0 0 1 1 2 Nechí 1 0 0 1 1 3 San Pedro De Uraba 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turbo 1 0 0 1 1 3 Vigia Del Fuerte 0 0 0 1 1 2 El Carmen De Bolívar 0 0 0 1 1 2 Maria La Baja 0 0 0 1 1 2 San Jacinto 0 1 1 1 1 4 43 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 21: NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVE JUDICIAL MECHANISMS PER MUNICIPALITY 2016. MUNICIPALITY JUSTICE HOUSES CONCILIATION CENTER COEXISTENCE CENTERS MUNICIPAL FAMILY AFFAIRS OFFICES POLICE INSPECTIONS TOTAL San Juan Nepomuceno 0 0 0 1 1 2 Caldono 0 0 0 1 1 2 Caloto 0 0 1 1 1 3 Corinto 1 0 0 1 1 3 El Tambo 0 0 0 1 1 2 Jambaló 0 0 0 1 1 2 Miranda 0 0 0 1 1 2 Santander De Quil. 1 0 0 1 1 3 Toribío 1 0 0 1 1 3 Montelíbano 0 0 0 1 1 2 Puerto Libertador 0 0 0 1 1 2 San José De Uré 0 0 0 1 1 2 Tierralta 0 0 0 1 1 2 Valencia 0 2 0 1 1 4 Bojayá (Bellavista) 0 0 0 1 1 2 Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 1 0 0 1 1 3 Condoto 1 0 0 1 1 3 Istmina 1 0 0 1 1 3 Nóvita 1 0 0 1 1 3 Riosucio 0 0 0 1 1 2 Unguía 0 0 0 1 1 2 Barbacoas 0 0 0 1 1 2 El Charco 0 0 0 1 1 2 La Tola 0 0 0 1 1 2 Magüí (Payán) 0 0 0 1 1 2 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 44 TABLE 21: NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVE JUDICIAL MECHANISMS PER MUNICIPALITY 2016. MUNICIPALITY JUSTICE HOUSES CONCILIATION CENTER COEXISTENCE CENTERS MUNICIPAL FAMILY AFFAIRS OFFICES POLICE INSPECTIONS TOTAL Olaya Herrera (Bocas .) 0 0 0 1 1 2 Francisco Pizarro 0 0 0 1 1 2 Ricaurte 0 0 0 1 1 2 Roberto Payán 0 0 0 1 1 2 Santa Bárbara 0 0 0 1 1 2 Tumaco 1 4 0 1 1 7 Chalán 0 0 0 1 1 2 Ovejas 0 0 0 1 1 2 San Onofre 1 0 0 1 1 3 Orito 0 0 0 1 1 2 Puerto Asís 1 1 0 1 1 4 Puerto Caicedo 0 0 1 1 1 3 Puerto Guzmán 0 0 0 1 1 2 Puerto Leguízamo 0 0 0 1 1 2 San Miguel 0 0 0 1 1 2 Valle Del Guamuez 0 0 0 1 1 2 Villagarzón 0 0 0 1 1 2 SOURCE FOR FORMAL MECHANISMS (TABLE 13) ARE RESPONSES FROM FGN AND CSJ. FOR ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS (TABLE 14) RESPONSE FROM DNP. METHODOLOGY. We have not received information from the Defensoría del Pueblo regarding public defendants, nor from most local authorities regarding comisarias de familia. Also, information received for judges or prosecutors is not disaggregated by the types of court or types of offenses. We did not receive information about court assistants nor have we received a response from the Ministerio de Justicia that should have up-to-date information about alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. We received information from the DNP regarding alternative judicial mechanism capabilities for 2016. This information is not georeferenced and updated. MAIN CAUTIONS. The registration and update for this information in the FGN or the CSJ can be precarious. Recent changes may not be reflected. 45 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Also, from a policy standpoint, the mere presence or number of public officials in some of these municipalities does not necessarily reflect a positive outcome. Population size and caseload may be so low in some localities, that a reasonable prioritization decision can avoid allocating judges or prosecutors in some of them: the benefits in terms of the satisfaction of judicial needs may be low, comparing to the costs, in terms of resource inflexibility. UPDATE. We received information from the Defensoría del Pueblo regarding the number of available public defenders per judicial circuit, which contains more than one municipality. We also received data from PGN regarding the staff at Comisarías de Familia in 2018. The PIRS format includes detailed information on the methodology and technical limitations related to this data. INDICATOR 12-MUNICIPAL BUDGETS FOR JUSTICE SECTOR PLANNED INDICATOR. The value of public funds allocated for access to justice activities in annual municipal budgets relative to the local population. This indicator illustrates the level of priority enjoyed by the justice sector activities comparing to other public service issues. We defined it as a per capita investment to be able to compare the effort of the municipalities given its heterogeneity. TABLE 22: PER CAPITA INVESTMENT. SELECTED YEARS MUNICIPALITY 2018 2019 2020 El Tambo 8,670.84 7,443.77 3,518.61 Toribio No data No data 5,413.58 Jambaló 5,098.86 4,987.32 5,911.02 San Jacinto 18,486.21 18,337.99 8,956.63 Santander de Quilichao No data No data 5,530.92 METHODOLOGY. For this indicator, we sent 54 derechos de petición asking for this budget information, since there is no public data on the justice municipal budget available to the public. As of December 18, we received 16 responses. Of these, only five gave useful information for this indicator. We use the 2018 DANE Census to calculate per capita investment for the years with available information. MAIN CAUTIONS. Many municipalities do not have clear or systematic budget information in justice activities. The majority does not have information from previous mayor administrations. And for those that do have information, there are multiple criteria to understand what can be defined as judicial activities, so the comparison between municipalities can be difficult. UPDATE. On January 20, we received 33 responses but they do not include applicable useful information. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 46 INDICATOR 14. REMOTE CRIMINAL REPORTING PLANNED INDICATOR. The proportion of remote criminal reporting (app, email, call center). This indicator was formulated to show the proportion of criminal complaints filed through non￾presential channels including apps, email, calls, etc. This is a critical complementary mechanism to physical institutions’ presence. TABLE 23: PROPORTION OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FILED THROUGH VIRTUAL MEANS MUNICIPALITY VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION 2019 (percentage) VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION 2020 (percentage) Apartado 10,4 32,9 Barbacoas 0 0 Bojaya 0 0 Caldono 0 0 Caloto 0 0 Carepa 0 0 Carmen Del Darien 0 Chalan Condoto 0,7 0 Corinto 0 0 Dabeiba 0 0,6 El Carmen De Bolivar 15,6 44,3 El Charco 0 0 El Tambo 0 0 Francisco Pizarro Istmina 0 0 Jambalo La Tola Magui Maria La Baja 0 0 Miranda 0 0 Montelibano 0 0 47 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 23: PROPORTION OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FILED THROUGH VIRTUAL MEANS MUNICIPALITY VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION 2019 (percentage) VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION 2020 (percentage) Mutata 0 Nechi 0 0 Necocli 0 22,4 Novita Olaya Herrera Orito 0 4,7 Ovejas 0 0 Puerto Asis 0 0 Puerto Caicedo 0 0 Puerto Guzman Puerto Leguizamo Puerto Libertador 0 0 Ricaurte 0 0 Riosucio 0 0 Roberto Payan San Jacinto 0 San Jose De Ure San Juan Nepomuceno 0 0 San Miguel 0 San Onofre 0 0 San Pedro De Uraba 0 0 Santa Barbara 0 Santander De Quilichao 11,6 40,3 Tierralta 0 0 Toribio Tumaco 2,1 0 Turbo 19,3 0 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 48 TABLE 23: PROPORTION OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FILED THROUGH VIRTUAL MEANS MUNICIPALITY VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION 2019 (percentage) VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION 2020 (percentage) Unguia 0 0 Valencia Valle Del Guamuez 0 0 Vigia Del Fuerte 0 0 Villagarzon 0 0 SOURCE. RESPONSES TO DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN FROM FGN METHODOLOGY. This indicator illustrates the proportion of criminal complaints filed through the virtual platform “A Denunciar” per year according to the SPOA information system, compared to the total number of criminal complaints. MAIN CAUTIONS. FGN closes cases if it considers that a crime was not committed and excludes these from the case count. There are no standardized procedures to close cases received by email and or call centers. INDICATOR 15 - ACCESS TO JUSTICE MOBILE BRIGADES PLANNED INDICATOR. The planned or implemented access to justice mobile brigades in each municipality. Mobile brigades constitute flexible dispute resolution mechanisms that can be adapted to regions with limited geographic access. This indicator illustrates the level at which this tool is used in different municipalities. TABLE 24: USERS SERVED IN MOBILE BRIGADES PER MUNICIPALITY FOR ARMED CONFLICT VICTIMS, 2019 MUNICIPALITY WOMEN MEN AFRO-COLOMBIANS INDIGENOUS LGBTI Apartado Barbacoas 303 143 340 1 0 Bojaya Caldono 496 301 6 444 0 Caloto 163 83 61 85 0 49 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 24: USERS SERVED IN MOBILE BRIGADES PER MUNICIPALITY FOR ARMED CONFLICT VICTIMS, 2019 MUNICIPALITY WOMEN MEN AFRO-COLOMBIANS INDIGENOUS LGBTI Carepa Carmen Del Darien Chalan Condoto Corinto 256 78 14 22 0 Dabeiba 462 276 2 114 0 El Carmen De Bolivar El Charco 262 139 382 8 0 El Tambo 401 208 9 6 0 Francisco Pizarro Istmina Jambalo La Tola 145 49 185 7 1 Magui Maria La Baja Miranda 1017 487 122 489 1 Montelibano 79 41 6 2 0 Mutata 243 148 30 136 0 Nechi 159 89 5 2 0 Necocli Novita Olaya Herrera Orito 447 234 48 86 0 Ovejas Puerto Asis 266 97 13 37 0 Puerto Caicedo Puerto Guzman USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 50 TABLE 24: USERS SERVED IN MOBILE BRIGADES PER MUNICIPALITY FOR ARMED CONFLICT VICTIMS, 2019 MUNICIPALITY WOMEN MEN AFRO-COLOMBIANS INDIGENOUS LGBTI Puerto Leguizamo Puerto Libertador 453 245 13 99 0 Ricaurte 323 108 9 335 0 Riosucio Roberto Payan San Jacinto San Jose De Ure San Juan Nepomuceno San Miguel San Onofre San Pedro De Uraba Santa Barbara 268 85 0 0 0 Santander De Quilichao 165 75 17 26 0 Tierralta Toribio Tumaco Turbo Unguia Valencia Valle Del Guamuez Vigia Del Fuerte Villagarzon 218 67 2 33 0 SOURCE. RESPONSES TO DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN FROM MINISTERIO DE JUSTICIA AND FGN AND UEAGRT. METHODOLOGY. Information received concerns persons serviced in different types of brigades, including (i) Unidad Móvil de Atención y Orientación for armed conflict victims (Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho) illustrated in the Table above, (ii) Alternative resolution mechanisms brigade for all citizens from the Dirección de Métodos Alternativos de Solución de Conflictos (DMASC -Ministerio Justicia y del Derecho), (iii) Jornadas móviles from the Dirección de Justicia Transicional (FGN). Victims/persons are disaggregated by year, sex, ethnic group and the LGBTI population; and (iv) Total serviced victims in 51 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV brigades (Jornadas de Información Comunitaria) from the Unidad Administrativa Especial de Gestion de Restitucion de Tierras Despojadas. MAIN CAUTIONS. Registration and update of this information in the FGN and the Ministerio de Justicia are precarious. UPDATE. The DP reported that it does not have this information with municipal specificity. INDICATOR 16- INDIGENOUS AUTHORITIES PROVIDING JUSTICE SERVICES PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of indigenous authorities exercising justice functions in each municipality relative to the indigenous population, total population, indigenous sq km, and total sq km. This indicator was formulated to show the degree to which ethnic groups are providing justice services in their communities for each municipality. However, national authorities only have information about the registered existence of ethnic group authorities, which in turn can eventually provide justice services (which are illustrated in Table 25). But there is no data about the effective provision of these services. TABLE 25. INDIGENOUS AUTHORITIES REGISTERED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CABILDOS AND/OR INDIGENOUS AUTHORITIES MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Apartadó 1 0 2 2 3 Carepa 0 0 0 0 0 Dabeiba 0 2 1 0 3 Mutatá 12 1 8 3 1 Necoclí 1 3 2 2 3 Nechí 0 0 0 0 0 San Pedro De Uraba 1 2 1 2 2 Turbo 1 3 4 2 4 Vigia Del Fuerte 0 4 0 0 0 El Carmen De Bolívar 0 0 0 0 0 Maria La Baja 2 0 0 0 0 San Jacinto 0 0 0 0 0 San Juan Nepomuceno 0 1 0 0 0 Caldono 9 11 11 11 11 Caloto 3 5 16 8 9 Corinto 1 2 8 1 1 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 52 TABLE 25. INDIGENOUS AUTHORITIES REGISTERED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CABILDOS AND/OR INDIGENOUS AUTHORITIES MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 El Tambo 0 0 0 0 0 Jambaló 8 7 8 8 11 Miranda 1 1 4 3 4 Santander De Quilichao 0 0 0 0 0 Toribío 1 1 1 1 1 Montelíbano 4 5 4 6 4 Puerto Libertador 15 11 11 6 11 San José De Uré 2 3 2 1 3 Tierralta 4 15 13 8 4 Valencia 0 0 0 0 0 Bojayá (Bellavista) 0 16 2 11 1 Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 4 6 1 0 0 Condoto 0 0 0 0 1 Istmina 3 1 1 3 3 Nóvita 0 0 4 1 2 Riosucio 1 4 6 3 1 Unguía 3 7 5 2 2 Barbacoas 7 5 18 10 12 El Charco 3 0 5 0 0 La Tola 1 0 0 0 0 Magüí (Payán) 0 0 0 0 0 OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 5 1 7 6 0 Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 0 0 0 0 0 Ricaurte 17 17 16 16 18 Roberto Payán (San José) 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 0 0 0 0 0 Tumaco 13 8 13 13 7 53 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 25. INDIGENOUS AUTHORITIES REGISTERED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CABILDOS AND/OR INDIGENOUS AUTHORITIES MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Chalán 0 0 0 0 0 Ovejas 1 3 0 1 2 San Onofre 5 0 0 5 0 Orito 31 34 48 45 42 Puerto Asís 21 22 22 22 14 Puerto Caicedo 15 16 14 17 12 Puerto Guzmán 8 6 12 15 8 Puerto Leguízamo 31 29 33 56 32 San Miguel 12 8 7 7 8 Valle Del Guamuez 9 12 14 11 18 Villagarzón 12 14 14 18 19 SOURCE. RESPONSES TO DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN FROM THE MINISTERIO DEL INTERIOR. REGISTRO DE CABILDOS Y AUTORIDADES INDÍGENAS. METHODOLOGY. This indicator contains information regarding the number of indigenous authorities per municipality according to the Registry of Indigenous authorities and/or Cabildos, which contains all such authorities with legal status, that can in turn exercise public functions (jurisdictional, administrative, and political tasks) in their territory. However, the Interior Ministry does not have information about ethnic groups effectively exercising justice functions. MAIN CAUTIONS. The PIRS format includes detailed information on the methodology and technical limitations related to this indicator. Current information for this indicator shows the authorities that can provide judicial services, but not those that actually do. INDICATOR 17 – ORDINARY CASES REGARDING ETHNIC GROUPS PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of cases in FGN in which victims and known suspects belong to an ethnic group. This indicator shows, partially, the level at which “ordinary jurisdiction” services affect members of ethnic groups, either because crime victims (illustrated in Table 26) or suspects are indigenous. TABLE 26. CASES IN WHICH THE VICTIM BELONGS TO AN ETHNIC GROUP MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 Apartadó 1 1 3 Carepa 2 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 54 TABLE 26. CASES IN WHICH THE VICTIM BELONGS TO AN ETHNIC GROUP MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 Dabeiba 1 Mutatá 1 Necoclí Nechí San Pedro De Uraba 1 Turbo 1 1 1 Vigia Del Fuerte El Carmen De Bolívar 1 Maria La Baja San Jacinto San Juan Nepomuceno Caldono 10 21 Caloto 1 2 1 1 Corinto 1 3 1 El Tambo 1 Jambaló Miranda 2 Santander De Quilichao 7 26 17 20 Toribío 1 0 1 11 Montelíbano 0 Puerto Libertador 0 1 San José De Uré Tierralta Valencia Bojayá (Bellavista) 2 Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) Condoto 1 1 Istmina 4 2 21 33 55 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 26. CASES IN WHICH THE VICTIM BELONGS TO AN ETHNIC GROUP MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 Nóvita 1 5 2 Riosucio 1 Unguía Barbacoas 1 1 11 El Charco 1 La Tola Magüí (Payán) 1 OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) Ricaurte Roberto Payán (San José) Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) Tumaco 2 5 Chalán Ovejas San Onofre 1 Orito Puerto Asís 1 2 Puerto Caicedo 1 Puerto Guzmán Puerto Leguízamo 2 2 1 San Miguel 1 Valle Del Guamuez Villagarzón 1 SOURCE. RESPONSE TO DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN FROM FGN. METHODOLOGY. We received information from the FNG regarding annual total cases (noticias criminales) according to SPOA from 2016 to November 2020. The information relates to the number of cases per year since 2016 in which the victim or the suspect belongs to an ethnic group. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 56 MAIN CAUTIONS. In addition to cautions that apply to all FGN counts (see indicator 1), SPOA information on victims’ and suspects’ characteristics is not well maintained. INDICATOR 18- AFRO-COLOMBIAN AUTHORITIES EXERCISING JUSTICE PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of Afro-Colombian authorities exercising justice. This indicator illustrates the degree to which Afro-Colombian groups provide community-level dispute resolution mechanisms. Although non-ethnic groups do not have jurisdictional autonomy, they can provide for their informal mechanism to manage disputes. Table 27 shows the number of registered Afro-Colombian communities in each municipality. We do not find data about the provision of justice services. TABLE 27. REGISTRY OF NARP COMMUNITY COUNCILS AND ORGANIZATIONS. 2019. MUNICIPALITY NUMBER Apartadó 1 Carepa Dabeiba Mutatá Necoclí Nechí San Pedro De Uraba Turbo 3 Vigia Del Fuerte El Carmen De Bolívar Maria La Baja 1 San Jacinto 1 San Juan Nepomuceno Caldono Caloto 1 Corinto El Tambo 1 Jambaló Miranda 57 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 27. REGISTRY OF NARP COMMUNITY COUNCILS AND ORGANIZATIONS. 2019. MUNICIPALITY NUMBER Santander De Quilichao 1 Toribío Montelíbano Puerto Libertador San José De Uré 2 Tierralta 1 Valencia Bojayá (Bellavista) Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 10 Condoto 22 Istmina 1 Nóvita 1 Riosucio 10 Unguía 1 Barbacoas 11 El Charco 3 La Tola 1 Magüí (Payán) 4 OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 3 Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 1 Ricaurte Roberto Payán (San José) 5 Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 3 Tumaco 15 Chalán Ovejas San Onofre USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 58 TABLE 27. REGISTRY OF NARP COMMUNITY COUNCILS AND ORGANIZATIONS. 2019. MUNICIPALITY NUMBER Orito 4 Puerto Asís 3 Puerto Caicedo 1 Puerto Guzmán 3 Puerto Leguízamo San Miguel Valle Del Guamuez Villagarzón SOURCE. OPEN SOURCE FROM THIS LINK METHODOLOGY. This indicator contains information regarding the number of community councils or organizations of NARP communities per municipality according to a national registry managed by the Ministry of Interior. This agency provided a link for a national registry of Community Councils and Organization (NARP). In contrast with indigenous authorities, Afro communities do not have an autonomous conflict resolution jurisdiction recognized by the Constitution. But NARP Communities may create and apply alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for their communities. MAIN CAUTIONS. This indicator shows the Afro-Colombian authorities that can provide alternative judicial services but not those that actually do provide these services. INDICATOR 19- DISPUTES RESOLVED BY GOVERNMENT-TRAINED ADR PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of disputes resolved by government-trained ADR providers. This indicator illustrates the need for and response from alternative dispute resolution services per municipality. TABLE 28. CONCILIATIONS ACCORDING TO THE RESULT. 2019. MUNICIPALITY PRESENTED REQUESTS TOTAL CONCILIATION PARTIAL CONCILIATION NO CONCILIATION Apartadó 109 37 2 60 Carepa Dabeiba Mutatá 59 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 28. CONCILIATIONS ACCORDING TO THE RESULT. 2019. MUNICIPALITY PRESENTED REQUESTS TOTAL CONCILIATION PARTIAL CONCILIATION NO CONCILIATION Necoclí 4 0 0 0 Nechí San Pedro De Uraba 2 0 0 2 Turbo Vigia Del Fuerte El Carmen De Bolívar Maria La Baja San Jacinto San Juan Nepomuceno Caldono Caloto Corinto El Tambo Jambaló Miranda Santander De Quilichao Toribío 105 103 1 1 Montelíbano 35 10 2 4 Puerto Libertador San José De Uré Tierralta Valencia Bojayá Carmen Del Darién Condoto Istmina 141 117 0 9 Nóvita USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 60 TABLE 28. CONCILIATIONS ACCORDING TO THE RESULT. 2019. MUNICIPALITY PRESENTED REQUESTS TOTAL CONCILIATION PARTIAL CONCILIATION NO CONCILIATION Riosucio 12 7 5 0 Unguía Barbacoas 232 183 1 5 El Charco 108 68 15 14 La Tola Magüí Olaya Herrera Francisco Pizarro Ricaurte Roberto Payán 53 29 8 0 Santa Bárbara 5 3 1 1 Tumaco Chalán Ovejas 22 8 1 3 San Onofre 324 275 28 15 Orito Puerto Asís Puerto Caicedo 39 6 0 0 Puerto Guzmán Puerto Leguízamo 20 20 0 0 San Miguel Valle Del Guamuez Villagarzón 336 309 19 1 SOURCE. SISTEMA DE INFORMACIÓN DE LA CONCILIACIÓN, EL ARBITRAJE Y LA AMIGABLE COMPOSICIÓN – SICAAC. METHODOLOGY. This indicator contains information regarding the number of conciliations resolved by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms per municipality from 2016 to 2020, according to the type of requests (civil and commercial, community, administrative, family, labor, and criminal) and the type of result (conciliation, no conciliation, and partial conciliation). 61 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV MAIN CAUTIONS. The SICAAC did not provide methodological observations. INDICATOR 22. CASE INPUT/OUTPUT PLANNED INDICATOR. The case input and output for courts and other mechanisms in each municipality relative to types of judges and population. This indicator measures the reported demand for judicial services and the capabilities of different mechanisms to respond to those needs. Table 29 shows the number of cases submitted to courts in 2019, disaggregated by thematic jurisdictions, according to the response by the CSJ. TABLE 29. CASE INPUT BY JURISDICTION. EXCLUDING DESPACHOS PROMISCUOS 2019 MUNICIPALITY CIVIL PENAL LABOR ADMINISTRATIVE FAMILY Apartado 342 294 887 0 546 Carepa 0 0 0 0 0 Dabeiba 0 0 0 0 0 Mutata 0 0 0 0 0 Necocli 0 0 0 0 0 Nechi 0 0 0 0 0 San Pedro De Uraba 0 0 0 0 0 Turbo 84 405 320 1106 221 Vigia Del Fuerte 0 0 0 0 0 El Carmen De Bolivar 164 0 0 0 248 Maria La Baja 0 0 0 0 0 San Jacinto 0 0 0 0 0 San Juan Nepomuceno 0 0 0 0 0 Caldono 0 0 0 0 0 Caloto 0 0 0 0 56 Corinto 0 0 0 0 0 El Tambo 0 0 0 0 0 Jambalo 0 0 0 0 0 Miranda 0 0 0 0 0 Santander De Quilichao 1151 2041 0 0 395 Toribio 0 0 0 0 0 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 62 TABLE 29. CASE INPUT BY JURISDICTION. EXCLUDING DESPACHOS PROMISCUOS 2019 MUNICIPALITY CIVIL PENAL LABOR ADMINISTRATIVE FAMILY Montelibano 0 0 0 0 163 Puerto Libertador 0 0 0 0 0 San Jose De Ure 0 0 0 0 0 Tierralta 0 0 0 0 0 Valencia 0 0 0 0 0 Bojaya 0 0 0 0 0 Carmen Del Darien 0 0 0 0 0 Condoto 0 0 0 0 0 Istmina 182 136 0 0 144 Novita 0 0 0 0 0 Riosucio 0 0 0 0 25 Unguia 0 0 0 0 0 Barbacoas 0 0 0 0 18 El Charco 0 0 0 0 0 La Tola 0 0 0 0 0 Magui 0 0 0 0 0 Olaya Herrera 0 0 0 0 0 Francisco Pizarro 0 0 0 0 0 Ricaurte 0 0 0 0 0 Roberto Payan 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Barbara 0 0 0 0 0 Tumaco 909 3711 276 0 237 Chalan 0 0 0 0 0 Ovejas 0 0 0 0 0 San Onofre 0 0 0 0 0 Orito 0 0 0 0 0 Puerto Asis 0 165 0 0 233 Puerto Caicedo 0 0 0 0 0 63 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 29. CASE INPUT BY JURISDICTION. EXCLUDING DESPACHOS PROMISCUOS 2019 MUNICIPALITY CIVIL PENAL LABOR ADMINISTRATIVE FAMILY Puerto Guzman 0 0 0 0 0 Puerto Leguizamo 0 0 0 0 0 San Miguel 0 0 0 0 0 Valle Del Guamuez 0 0 0 0 0 Villagarzon 0 0 0 0 0 SOURCE. RESPONSES TO DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN FROM CSJ AND FGN. METHODOLOGY. This indicator contains information regarding case input and output organized according to the level and jurisdiction of the court. Inputs by municipality correspond to new cases by year. Outputs correspond to formal court actions that inactivate cases. MAIN CAUTIONS. The information regarding inputs seems scarce. According to CSJ data, several municipalities do not have any inputs. This seems suspicious. On another hand, outputs include a wide range of actions that have in common the effect of inactivating the case but may refer to very different types of procedural situations. INDICATOR 23. WOMEN VICTIMS OF VBG I PLANNED INDICATOR. The percentage of victims of gender-based violence that know the agencies where the justice route is activated. This indicator measures the percentage of women victims of gender-based violence surveyed who identify the agencies where they can activate an attention route for gender violence. These agencies are Casas de Justicia, Comisarias de Familia, Procuraduría Medicina Legal, Policía Nacional, clinics or hospitals, and the Secretarias de Salud. TABLE 30. SURVEYED WOMEN VICTIMS THAT KNOW THE ROUTE OF ATTENTION, 2020. MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS NUMBER THAT KNOW ROUTE KNOWLEDGE PERCENTAGE Apartadó 285 267 93.68% Carepa Dabeiba Mutatá Necoclí Nechí 96 91 94.79% San Pedro De Uraba USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 64 TABLE 30. SURVEYED WOMEN VICTIMS THAT KNOW THE ROUTE OF ATTENTION, 2020. MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS NUMBER THAT KNOW ROUTE KNOWLEDGE PERCENTAGE Turbo 256 237 92.58% Vigia Del Fuerte El Carmen De Bolívar Maria La Baja San Jacinto San Juan Nepomuceno Caldono Caloto 66 55 83.33% Corinto 32 26 81.25% El Tambo 97 90 92.78% Jambaló Miranda 76 72 94.74% Santander De Quilichao 216 206 95.37% Toribío 60 56 93.33% Montelíbano 272 249 91.54% Puerto Libertador 9 7 77.78% San José De Uré Tierralta 54 49 90.74% Valencia 166 149 89.76% Bojayá 100 92 92% Carmen Del Darién Condoto Istmina Nóvita Riosucio 275 242 88% Unguía Barbacoas 96 89 92.71% 65 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 30. SURVEYED WOMEN VICTIMS THAT KNOW THE ROUTE OF ATTENTION, 2020. MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS NUMBER THAT KNOW ROUTE KNOWLEDGE PERCENTAGE El Charco La Tola Magüí 107 91 85.05% Olaya Herrera Francisco Pizarro Ricaurte Roberto Payán 80 77 96.25% Santa Bárbara Tumaco Chalán Ovejas San Onofre Orito 146 143 97.95% Puerto Asís 205 199 97.07% Puerto Caicedo 54 52 96.3% Puerto Guzmán 60 59 98.33% Puerto Leguízamo 83 82 98.8% San Miguel 54 52 96.3% Valle Del Guamuez 118 114 96.61% Villagarzón SOURCE. USAID-PANAGORA SURVEY. METHODOLOGY. This indicator contains information from a randomized sample of women in PDET regions. From several agencies and organizations asked for by the survey, we filtered to the agencies that can activate an access to justice route. MAIN CAUTIONS. The survey only represents regions and not municipalities. INDICATOR 24. WOMEN VICTIMS OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE II PLANNED INDICATOR. The percentage of victims of gender-based violence that file a formal complaint and perceive an adequate response. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 66 Our indicator measures the percentage of surveyed women victims of gender-based violence who sought help at the following authorities: Casas de Justicia, Comisarias de Familia, Defensoria, Fiscalía, ICBF, Juzgados, Medicina Legal, Personeria, Policía Nacional, Unidad de Víctimas, Procuraduría or Cabildo, and considered their problem was solved. TABLE 31. SURVEYED WOMEN VICTIMS OF VBG WHO SOUGHT HELP AND CONSIDERED THEIR PROBLEM SOLVED BY THE RELEVANT AUTHORITY, 2020. MUNICIPALITY NUMBER THAT SOME ENTITY ATTENDED NUMBER TO WHICH THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED PERCENTAGE SOLUTION Apartadó 22 13 59.09% Carepa Dabeiba Mutatá Necoclí Nechí 3 1 33.33% San Pedro De Uraba Turbo 12 10 83.33% Vigia Del Fuerte El Carmen De Bolívar Maria La Baja San Jacinto San Juan Nepomuceno Caldono Caloto 2 1 50% Corinto 1 1 100% El Tambo 5 4 80% Jambaló Miranda 3 3 100% Santander De Quilichao 6 2 33.33% Toribío 5 2 40% Montelíbano 7 7 100% Puerto Libertador 67 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 31. SURVEYED WOMEN VICTIMS OF VBG WHO SOUGHT HELP AND CONSIDERED THEIR PROBLEM SOLVED BY THE RELEVANT AUTHORITY, 2020. MUNICIPALITY NUMBER THAT SOME ENTITY ATTENDED NUMBER TO WHICH THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED PERCENTAGE SOLUTION San José De Uré Tierralta Valencia 5 1 20% Bojayá 8 6 75% Carmen Del Darién Condoto Istmina Nóvita Riosucio 15 10 66.67% Unguía Barbacoas 5 4 80% El Charco La Tola Magüí 3 0 0% Olaya Herrera Francisco Pizarro Ricaurte Roberto Payán 6 2 33.33% Santa Bárbara Tumaco Chalán Ovejas San Onofre Orito 8 6 75% Puerto Asís 9 1 11.11% Puerto Caicedo 1 0 0% USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 68 TABLE 31. SURVEYED WOMEN VICTIMS OF VBG WHO SOUGHT HELP AND CONSIDERED THEIR PROBLEM SOLVED BY THE RELEVANT AUTHORITY, 2020. MUNICIPALITY NUMBER THAT SOME ENTITY ATTENDED NUMBER TO WHICH THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED PERCENTAGE SOLUTION Puerto Guzmán 4 2 50% Puerto Leguízamo 5 5 100% San Miguel 2 1 50% Valle Del Guamuez 10 4 40% Villagarzón SOURCE. USAID- PANAGORA SURVEY METHODOLOGY. This indicator contains information from a randomized sample of women in PDET regions. Surveyed women were victims of VBG who sought help with different formal justice agencies. Seeking help include a wider array of possibilities than just filing a criminal complaint, including many types of victim's services that do not necessarily activate a criminal investigation. We filtered out some private organizations where some victims sought help. It is possible to apply an additional filter for authorities that only receive criminal complaints. MAIN CAUTIONS. The survey only represents regions and not municipalities. The number of cases for some regions is too small to draw any statistical inferences. And the information refers to the number of victims that sought help, and not that filed a criminal complaint, as was originally intended. INDICATOR 27- ORGANIZED CRIME AND NON-STATE ACTORS’ PRESENCE PLANNED INDICATOR. The organized crime and non-state actors’ presence, operations, and violent actions. This indicator is an important part of the context to analyze PDET municipalities. It shows the level of presence and violent actions by non-state actors, which can greatly affect judicial needs and justice authorities’ capacity. Table 32 shows the number of non-state actors that are present in the relevant territory. TABLE 32. TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-STATE ACTORS THAT ARE PRESENT IN THE RELEVANT TERRITORY MUNICIPALITY ORGANIZATIONS PRESENCE (INDEPAZ) Apartadó 2 Carepa 1 Dabeiba 1 69 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 32. TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-STATE ACTORS THAT ARE PRESENT IN THE RELEVANT TERRITORY MUNICIPALITY ORGANIZATIONS PRESENCE (INDEPAZ) Mutatá 1 Necoclí 1 Nechí 3 San Pedro De Uraba 1 Turbo 2 Vigia Del Fuerte 2 El Carmen De Bolívar 2 Maria La Baja 1 San Jacinto 2 San Juan Nepomuceno 2 Caldono 2 Caloto 7 Corinto 8 El Tambo 7 Jambaló 2 Miranda 8 Santander De Quilichao 6 Toribío 5 Montelíbano 2 Puerto Libertador 5 San José De Uré 4 Tierralta 4 Valencia 2 Bojayá (Bellavista) 2 Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 2 Condoto 1 Istmina 2 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 70 TABLE 32. TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-STATE ACTORS THAT ARE PRESENT IN THE RELEVANT TERRITORY MUNICIPALITY ORGANIZATIONS PRESENCE (INDEPAZ) Nóvita 2 Riosucio 2 Unguía 1 Barbacoas 7 El Charco 5 La Tola 2 Magüí (Payán) 6 OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 4 Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 5 Ricaurte 4 Roberto Payán (San José) 5 Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 4 Tumaco 8 Chalán 0 Ovejas 2 San Onofre 1 Orito 2 Puerto Asís 3 Puerto Caicedo 2 Puerto Guzmán 2 Puerto Leguízamo 2 San Miguel 2 Valle Del Guamuez 2 Villagarzón 1 SOURCE. RESPONSE TO DERECHO DE PETICIÓN FROM INDEPAZ. METHODOLOGY. We filed derechos de petición to all the official entities that collect and use this information, including FGN and armed forces. None of these have answered our petitions by the closing date, and deadlines are still pending. As an alternative source, we issued derechos de petición to three 71 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV NGOs that also collect this information –Indepaz, Pares, Cinep y Cerac. Indepaz responded with the information included above. This NGO’s information considers different sources, including government reports and alerts, journalistic accounts in national and foreign media other civil society reports. We will update this indicator as we receive more information. MAIN CAUTIONS. This measure captures the number of organizations in operation in different municipalities. With the information we have now, we cannot qualify that presence in terms of violence or other characteristics. INDICATOR 28 - RURALITY LEVEL PLANNED INDICATOR. The rurality level. This context indicator shows the degree and type of municipalities in terms of their urban or rural characteristics. TABLE 33. RURALITY LEVEL PER MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPALITY CATEGORY (LAW 617) RURALTY LEVEL Apartadó 3 Ciudades y aglomeraciones Carepa 6 Intermedio Dabeiba 6 Rural Mutatá 6 Rural disperso Necoclí 6 Rural disperso Nechí 6 Rural San Pedro De Uraba 6 Intermedio Turbo 4 Ciudades y aglomeraciones Vigia Del Fuerte 6 Rural disperso El Carmen De Bolívar 6 Intermedio Maria La Baja 6 Intermedio San Jacinto 6 Rural San Juan Nepomuceno 6 Intermedio Caldono 6 Rural Caloto 5 Rural Corinto 6 Intermedio El Tambo 6 Rural disperso USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 72 TABLE 33. RURALITY LEVEL PER MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPALITY CATEGORY (LAW 617) RURALTY LEVEL Jambaló 6 Rural Miranda 5 Intermedio Santander De Quilichao 5 Intermedio Toribío 6 Rural Montelíbano 6 Intermedio Puerto Libertador 6 Rural San José De Uré 6 Rural Tierralta 6 Intermedio Valencia 6 Rural Bojayá (Bellavista) 6 Rural disperso Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 6 Rural disperso Condoto 6 Rural Istmina 6 Rural Nóvita 6 Rural disperso Riosucio 6 Rural disperso Unguía 6 Rural Barbacoas 6 Rural El Charco 6 Rural disperso La Tola 6 Rural Magüí (Payán) 6 Rural disperso OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 6 Rural Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 6 Rural Ricaurte 6 Rural disperso Roberto Payán (San José) 6 Rural disperso Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 6 Rural disperso Tumaco 4 Ciudades y aglomeraciones Chalán 6 Intermedio 73 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 33. RURALITY LEVEL PER MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPALITY CATEGORY (LAW 617) RURALTY LEVEL Ovejas 6 Rural San Onofre 6 Intermedio Orito 6 Intermedio Puerto Asís 6 Ciudades y aglomeraciones Puerto Caicedo 6 Rural Puerto Guzmán 6 Rural disperso Puerto Leguízamo 6 Rural disperso San Miguel 6 Rural Valle Del Guamuez 6 Intermedio Villagarzón 6 Rural SOURCE. OPEN SOURCE FROM THE DNP. METHODOLOGY. This indicator contains information about the rurality level of each municipality according to the Law 617 of 2000. This law classifies municipalities into four categories (Cities and agglomerations, intermediate, rural, and rurally scattered) depending on the number of inhabitants, the population density, and the inclusion in a city system. INDICATOR 29- ETHNIC POPULATION PLANNED INDICATOR. The percent of indigenous, Afro-Colombian population and women. This context indicator shows the sex distribution and, ethnic and racial diversity of each municipality. TABLE 34. ETHNIC AND RACIAL POPULATION, 2018. MUNICIPALITY INDIGENOUS ROM RAIZAL PALANQUERA AFRO-COLOMBIAN. Apartado 810 2 32 8 42854 Carepa 68 1 1 1 11371 Dabeiba 4747 0 0 0 116 Mutata 2115 0 1 0 1187 Necocli 1495 1 1 8 18358 Nechi 93 0 1 0 2977 San Pedro De Uraba 572 16 0 0 326 Turbo 2322 2 11 3 72550 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 74 TABLE 34. ETHNIC AND RACIAL POPULATION, 2018. MUNICIPALITY INDIGENOUS ROM RAIZAL PALANQUERA AFRO-COLOMBIAN. Vigia Del Fuerte 1035 0 4 4 6675 El Carmen De Bolivar 1173 5 0 2 2570 Maria La Baja 425 1 3 3 42223 San Jacinto 74 0 1 0 1110 San Juan Nepomuceno 286 0 2 5 2363 Caldono 27088 0 1 5 113 Caloto 12790 1 5 5 6399 Corinto 8971 3 4 0 2507 El Tambo 3841 1 0 0 4028 Jambalo 16120 0 0 0 30 Miranda 5135 1 2 0 7850 Santander De Quilichao 24760 5 10 5 21996 Toribio 29956 2 0 0 30 Montelibano 5878 0 2 2 746 Puerto Libertador 5815 1 2 3 548 San Jose De Ure 5267 0 0 1 2632 Tierralta 10568 1 16 5 6965 Valencia 195 0 3 0 1478 Bojaya 4055 0 0 2 5500 Carmen Del Darien 2279 0 6 2 9144 Condoto 70 0 22 3 11501 Istmina 1075 0 22 5 25103 Novita 267 0 1 3 7411 Riosucio 3329 0 3 15 36424 Unguia 1061 1 7 5 9291 Barbacoas 9729 0 9 15 20016 El Charco 946 2 3 9 18627 La Tola 122 0 1 2 5396 75 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 34. ETHNIC AND RACIAL POPULATION, 2018. MUNICIPALITY INDIGENOUS ROM RAIZAL PALANQUERA AFRO-COLOMBIAN. Magui 50 1 8 8 17212 Olaya Herrera 968 0 2 4 19748 Francisco Pizarro 38 0 1 7 6380 Ricaurte 13613 0 0 0 275 Roberto Payan 103 1 1 15 8443 Santa Barbara 155 1 1 1 8058 Tumaco 12025 10 37 20 112508 Chalan 160 0 0 0 668 Ovejas 1033 1 0 0 550 San Onofre 3497 0 22 4 42571 Orito 5852 4 0 2 1862 Puerto Asis 4883 3 1 8 2002 Puerto Caicedo 1582 0 0 0 428 Puerto Guzman 1780 0 0 0 1018 Puerto Leguizamo 6307 3 5 12 753 San Miguel 2721 0 3 3 649 Valle Del Guamuez 3549 1 0 0 814 Villagarzon 3948 1 1 4 562 SOURCE. OPEN SOURCE FROM THE DANE, USING CENSUS DATA FROM 2018. METHODOLOGY. This indicator includes information regarding the proportion of the municipal population by ethnicity according to Census data CNPV 2018- DANE, which counts populations depending on if they are members of different communities, including indigenous, raizal, Palenquero, Rom or Gypsy, mulatto, and Afro-Colombian or Afro-descendant population. In the CNPV 2018, belonging to any ethnic group is based on self-recognition. INDICATOR 30 – SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNED INDICATOR. Institutional development indicators. This indicator gives context about the degree of socio-economic development and State capacity in each municipality. For now, we received an index on multidimensional poverty, illustrated in Table 35. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 76 TABLE 35. MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX 2018 MUNICIPALITY MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX Apartadó 28 Carepa 34.4 Dabeiba 60.5 Mutatá 57.8 Necoclí 62.7 Nechí 61.5 San Pedro De Uraba 62.3 Turbo 49.9 Vigia Del Fuerte 76.1 El Carmen De Bolívar 58.4 Maria La Baja 63.2 San Jacinto 60.3 San Juan Nepomuceno 56.2 Caldono 56 Caloto 37.4 Corinto 33.7 El Tambo 46 Jambaló 46.5 Miranda 21.6 Santander De Quilichao 23.8 Toribío 45.1 Montelíbano 41.1 Puerto Libertador 58.9 San José De Uré 61.3 Tierralta 63.8 Valencia 53.1 Bojayá (Bellavista) 77.1 Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 77.8 77 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 35. MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX 2018 MUNICIPALITY MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX Condoto 53.2 Istmina 55.1 Nóvita 60.1 Riosucio 70.9 Unguía 63.4 Barbacoas 76.1 El Charco 75.9 La Tola 73.9 Magüí (Payán) 85.3 OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 75.9 Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 69.5 Ricaurte 71.9 Roberto Payán (San José) 81 Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 75.1 Tumaco 53.7 Chalán 73.9 Ovejas 51.5 San Onofre 69 Orito 39.8 Puerto Asís 44.1 Puerto Caicedo 38.9 Puerto Guzmán 62.2 Puerto Leguízamo 53.6 San Miguel 48.5 Valle Del Guamuez 41 Villagarzón 37.1 SOURCE. RESPONSE TO DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN FROM THE DNP USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 78 METHODOLOGY. We received information from the DNP regarding the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)-2018. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) is a composite index of five quality of life dimensions that do not include income. The index allows the analysis of multiple dimensions of poverty that can be simultaneously experienced by a household. In Colombia, the MPI consists of five dimensions, all of which are measured at the household level: i) educational conditions, ii) conditions of childhood and youth, iii) health, iv) work, and v) housing conditions and home public services. These dimensions are divided into 15 variables and a household with deprivation in at least five variables (representing 33 percent of the deprivation) is considered multidimensionally poor. We are waiting for additional information regarding State capacity for each municipality. INDICATOR 31- INTERNET PENETRATION PLANNED INDICATOR. Internet penetration This is another context indicator, that shows development levels and connectivity in each municipality. TABLE 36. FIXED BROADBAND INTERNET PENETRATION INDEX MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Apartadó 7.40% 8.20% 13.90% 15.70% 17.40% Carepa 7.30% 7.70% 9.70% 9.80% 10.00% Dabeiba 3.10% 3.60% 4.30% 5.50% 6.40% Mutatá 3.50% 3.90% 7.10% 7.30% 8.30% Necoclí 2.40% 2.10% 3.50% 3.90% 4.50% Nechí 2.10% 2.10% 2.50% 2.60% 2.80% San Pedro De Uraba 2.80% 3.30% 3.60% 3.60% 4.00% Turbo 5.30% 5.60% 8.20% 8.20% 8.60% Vigia Del Fuerte 1.50% 2.20% 1.50% 1.40% 2.50% El Carmen De Bolívar 3.30% 3.60% 3.80% 2.40% 2.50% Maria La Baja 0.80% 0.90% 1.00% 0.80% 0.90% San Jacinto 3.40% 4.40% 4.80% 2.80% 1.40% San Juan Nepomuceno 3.80% 4.80% 4.80% 3.40% 3.50% Caldono 0.10% 0.10% 0.30% 0.50% 0.60% Caloto 0.90% 0.80% 0.40% 0.70% 0.30% Corinto 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.80% 0.70% El Tambo 0.30% 0.40% 0.70% 0.70% 0.90% 79 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 36. FIXED BROADBAND INTERNET PENETRATION INDEX MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Jambaló 0.10% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% Miranda 1.80% 0.80% 1.00% 0.90% 0.80% Santander De Quilichao 7.70% 7.80% 7.20% 8.10% 8.70% Toribío 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% Montelíbano 5.30% 5.30% 5.40% 4.70% 4.50% Puerto Libertador 0.50% 0.40% 0.40% 0.50% 4.10% San José De Uré 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% Tierralta 2.00% 2.20% 3.30% 3.60% 3.90% Valencia 1.50% 1.60% 2.40% 2.60% 2.80% Bojayá (Bellavista) 0.40% 0.60% 0.40% 0.30% 1.50% Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 0.50% 0.50% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% Condoto 1.20% 2.10% 3.40% 4.50% 4.70% Istmina 7.60% 8.10% 7.00% 8.00% 8.70% Nóvita 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.40% 0.30% Riosucio 0.40% 0.30% 0.20% 0.20% 0.40% Unguía 1.90% 4.00% 1.30% 1.00% 4.60% Barbacoas 0.20% 0.20% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% El Charco 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.30% La Tola 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.10% Magüí (Payán) 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.40% Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% Ricaurte 0.70% 0.80% 0.70% 0.40% 0.40% Roberto Payán (San José) 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.80% Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 0.20% Tumaco 1.40% 1.70% 1.70% 2.60% 2.80% Chalán 0.10% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 80 TABLE 36. FIXED BROADBAND INTERNET PENETRATION INDEX MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ovejas 0.90% 1.80% 2.80% 2.40% 1.90% San Onofre 1.10% 1.10% 1.10% 0.90% 0.90% Orito 1.50% 2.00% 4.10% 4.10% 2.90% Puerto Asís 3.50% 3.70% 11.10% 14.20% 29.20% Puerto Caicedo 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.20% 0.50% Puerto Guzmán 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% Puerto Leguízamo 0.40% 0.30% 0.80% 1.50% 1.60% San Miguel 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.90% Valle Del Guamuez 0.90% 0.80% 1.80% 2.60% 2.90% Villagarzón 1.30% 1.20% 1.20% 1.30% 1.40% SOURCE. RESPONSE TO DERECHO DE PETICIÓN FROM MINTIC. Methodology. Fixed broadband internet penetration index calculates the number of subscribers to fixed broadband internet services per 100 inhabitants. It includes information about the last trimester of years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Information for 2020 is for the second trimester. INDICATOR 32 – PUBLIC BUDGET PERFORMANCE PLANNED INDICATOR. Financial performance. This indicator gives context about the level of fiscal capabilities of local authorities, measured in terms of the level budgetary execution for each locality. Table 37 shows the Fiscal performance Index FPI results for 2019. The first column shows the results of the index for 2019. The second column shows the classification of each municipality according to the score obtained according to the DNP methodology. The lower the score, the more problems found in local fiscal management. TABLE 37. FISCAL PERFORMANCE INDEX (FPI) 2019 MUNICIPALITY FPI RANGE Apartadó 48.02 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Carepa 60.88 3. Vulnerable (>=60 y <70) Dabeiba 57.02 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Mutatá 57.88 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) 81 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 37. FISCAL PERFORMANCE INDEX (FPI) 2019 MUNICIPALITY FPI RANGE Necoclí 53.52 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Nechí 38.79 1. Deterioro (<40) San Pedro De Uraba 56.18 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Turbo 33.57 1. Deterioro (<40) Vigia Del Fuerte 42.63 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) El Carmen De Bolívar 31.92 1. Deterioro (<40) Maria La Baja 32.78 1. Deterioro (<40) San Jacinto 53.4 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) San Juan Nepomuceno 42.65 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Caldono 35.34 1. Deterioro (<40) Caloto 40.2 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Corinto 54.57 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) El Tambo 45.86 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Jambaló 51.08 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Miranda 55.59 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Santander De Quilichao 51.75 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Toribío 49.57 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Montelíbano 47.76 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Puerto Libertador 53.39 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) San José De Uré 48.88 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Tierralta 52.06 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Valencia 52.6 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Bojayá (Bellavista) 43.37 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 39.23 1. Deterioro (<40) Condoto 49.49 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Istmina 34.63 1. Deterioro (<40) Nóvita 57.42 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Riosucio 36.91 1. Deterioro (<40) USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 82 TABLE 37. FISCAL PERFORMANCE INDEX (FPI) 2019 MUNICIPALITY FPI RANGE Unguía 0 1. Deterioro (<40) Barbacoas 44.64 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) El Charco 52.9 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) La Tola 29.03 1. Deterioro (<40) Magüí (Payán) 46.7 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 48.78 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 35.8 1. Deterioro (<40) Ricaurte 44.29 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Roberto Payán (San José) 47.7 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 33.8 1. Deterioro (<40) Tumaco 45.27 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Chalán 37.56 1. Deterioro (<40) Ovejas 46.72 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) San Onofre 42.1 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Orito 67.32 3. Vulnerable (>=60 y <70) Puerto Asís 50.77 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Puerto Caicedo 52.22 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Puerto Guzmán 29.73 1. Deterioro (<40) Puerto Leguízamo 42.61 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) San Miguel 57.98 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Valle Del Guamuez 58.21 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) Villagarzón 45.71 2. Riesgo (>=40 y <60) SOURCE. OPEN SOURCES FROM DNP. NEW METHODOLOGY. INDICATOR 33 - COCA CULTIVATION PLANNED INDICATOR. Coca average planting density. The dynamics of local populations with justice sector authorities are different depending on the strength of illegal cultivations in a region. This indicator serves as a context to understand the degree to which territory is used for illegal activities. 83 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 38. HECTARES OF COCA FIELDS. SELECTED YEARS MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 Apartadó 9.48 7.93 1.51 7.26 Carepa Dabeiba Mutatá 6.65 3.49 1.21 Necoclí Nechí 360.85 551.52 708.03 530.37 San Pedro De Uraba 4.56 3.48 2.66 1.07 Turbo 97.99 61.01 56.84 54.52 Vigia Del Fuerte El Carmen De Bolívar Maria La Baja San Jacinto San Juan Nepomuceno Caldono Caloto 26.26 1.6 18.45 Corinto 38.91 10.54 10.88 El Tambo 5300.28 6661.01 7242.99 7102.46 Jambaló 68.96 Miranda 5.98 2.27 58.69 Santander De Quilichao Toribío 14.85 9.97 Montelíbano 573.86 1181.13 974.04 540.63 Puerto Libertador 570.62 1412.22 1013.93 855.85 San José De Uré 231.94 552.7 441.7 340.85 Tierralta 1290.07 1629.68 2201.26 1140.24 Valencia 1.8 4.71 5.48 4.29 Bojayá (Bellavista) Carmen Del Darién (Curbaradó) 98.28 159.99 153.39 232.42 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 84 TABLE 38. HECTARES OF COCA FIELDS. SELECTED YEARS MUNICIPALITY 2016 2017 2018 2019 Condoto 3.36 13.53 11.43 11.23 Istmina 476.71 743.05 577.36 228.85 Nóvita 75.26 162.33 130.29 69.32 Riosucio 35.75 113.87 104.01 148.83 Unguía 20.66 34.68 28.26 12.67 Barbacoas 3359.37 4590.5 3516.29 3138.09 El Charco 2819.91 4630.67 5147.73 5318.32 La Tola 119.83 292.3 280.36 279.54 Magüí (Payán) 1273.22 1716.95 2023.63 2148.19 OLAYA HERRERA (Bocas De Satinga) 2572.72 3355.53 3504.58 3561.9 Francisco Pizarro (Salahonda) 157.38 258.1 304.75 347.51 Ricaurte 333 784.16 808.56 640.93 Roberto Payán (San José) 2404.27 2733.71 2852.94 2990.16 Santa Bárbara (Iscuandé) 785.28 530.17 560.34 486.34 Tumaco 23147.95 19516.93 16046.85 11830.26 Chalán Ovejas San Onofre Orito 2987.87 3969.91 3949.26 3073.3 Puerto Asís 7453.44 9664.6 7657.88 6809.74 Puerto Caicedo 1782.14 2998.37 2905.02 2616.56 Puerto Guzmán 1584.84 2029.9 2014.05 1749.87 Puerto Leguízamo 1992.38 1403.95 1104.11 1651.81 San Miguel 3128.4 3553.66 3329.07 3752.43 Valle Del Guamuez 4885.79 4132.44 3362.77 3539.45 Villagarzón 1231.07 1759.91 2015.26 1702.67 SOURCE. OPEN SOURCE FROM THE OBSERVATORIO DROGAS DE COLOMBIA (ODC) UNODC 85 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV METHODOLOGY. We have not received information from the Instituto Agustin Codazzi regarding hectares per municipality. Therefore, we cannot estimate coca cultivation density for now. This information will be updated as we receive more data. INDICATOR 36. CASES AND VICTIMS. CONTEXT CRIMES PLANNED INDICATOR. The number of cases and victims per municipality for the following offenses: threats, illegal recruitment, extortion. These are disaggregated by human rights defenders and social leaders, sex, ethnic groups, and LGBTI. This indicator gives context on reported victimization levels for selected offenses. TABLE 39. AGGREGATED RESULT FOR SOME OFFENSES MUNICIPALITY THREAT EXTORSION ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT Apartadó 101 10 0 Carepa 34 6 0 Dabeiba 8 0 3 Mutatá 19ß 0 0 Necoclí 9 3 0 Nechí 4 7 0 San Pedro De Uraba 6 1 0 Turbo 52 13 1 Vigía Del Fuerte 5 0 0 El Carmen De Bolívar 151 12 0 María La Baja 28 1 0 San Jacinto 42 5 0 San Juan Nepomuceno 19 0 0 Caldono 83 6 0 Caloto 275 14 2 Corinto 80 8 1 El Tambo 114 12 2 Jambaló 26 11 0 Miranda 150 7 1 Santander De Quilichao 330 25 0 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 86 TABLE 39. AGGREGATED RESULT FOR SOME OFFENSES MUNICIPALITY THREAT EXTORSION ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT Toribio 100 7 0 Montelíbano 91 12 1 Puerto Libertador 91 4 0 San Jose De Ure 16 1 0 Tierralta 114 7 1 Valencia 23 0 0 Bojaya 7 0 5 Carmen Del Darien 15 0 0 Condoto 12 9 1 Istmina 20 6 0 Nóvita 10 1 1 Riosucio 86 3 1 Unguía 7 1 0 Barbacoas 125 4 1 El Charco 11 2 0 La Tola 9 0 0 Magüi 15 3 0 Olaya Herrera 13 1 0 Francisco Pizarro 4 0 0 Ricaurte 57 3 0 Roberto Payán 7 0 1 Santa Bárbara 14 0 1 Tumaco 271 51 10 Chalán 1 0 0 Ovejas 26 0 0 San Onofre 37 4 0 Orito 19 5 0 Puerto Asís 159 31 2 87 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 39. AGGREGATED RESULT FOR SOME OFFENSES MUNICIPALITY THREAT EXTORSION ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT Puerto Caicedo 23 1 0 Puerto Guzmán 24 4 1 Leguízamo 23 5 3 San Miguel 12 2 0 Valle Del Guamuez 27 5 0 Villagarzón 31 7 0 SOURCE. RESPONSE TO DERECHOS DE PETICIÓN FROM FGN. Methodology and cautions are the same as for indicator 1. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 88 ANNEX I: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Cases and victims of selected crimes. Name of Development Objective: Justice sector actors (prosecutors, investigators, defenders, and others, as relevant) use improved techniques and practices that focus on resolving high-impact crimes, including homicides of human rights defenders and social leaders, victims of gender-based violence, and victims of the conflict, thus reducing impunity and increasing citizen confidence in justice. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Total number of cases (“noticias criminales”) and victims according to the Accusatory Oral Criminal System (Law 906 of 2004 and Law 1098 of 2006) for events occurred from 2016 to nov 2020. B) Victimization rate per 100 thousand persons. Population data retrieved from CNPV. Unit of Measure: Noticias criminales and Victims Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2016, 2017,2018, 2019 and, nov 2020), B) Offences: intentional homicide, feminicide, sexual violence (group of offences), domestic violence, assault. C) Type of victim: ethnic group, human rights defenders, and social leaders, LGBTI. D) Gender. Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Accusatory Oral Criminal System (SPOA-FGN) Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to FGN. Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-nov 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES 89 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. Noticia criminal refers to a basic unit of analysis used as a criminal case by the FGN. In a minority of situations, it may contain more than one victim, criminal offence, offence or suspect. ii. Offences are measured by the number of Noticias Criminales, except for intentional homicide cases, that are measured by the number of victims. iii. FGN closes cases if it considers that a crime was not committed and excludes these from the case count. iv. Counts for all crimes underestimate true victimization levels, because of insufficient reporting to authorities. For most crimes, the majority of victims do not file a complaint. And some homicides in violent localities are unknown to criminal justice authorities. We did not find national and systematic data about the level of unreported crime, but there are some crime specific studies or local anecdotal accounts that confirm these issues. v. The SPOA information system is not well fed and updated, for variables including victims’ ethnicity, gender, and LGBTI status. vi. For social leaders and human rights defenders, we use the database built by the FGN, crossed with victims in the list by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Given COVID-19 travel limitations, the UN list for 2020 has not been promptly updated. vii. Cases are classified according to the date and place of events registered in SPOA. In some exceptions, incorrect case recording can mistake these with the dates or places of the complaint. viii. Groups of crimes: Some offences include several articles of the penal code and respond to groups of crimes defined by the FGN. The articles included for each offense are specified below. Offences Articles. Ley 599 de 2000 Intentional Homicide Art. 103 Feminicide Art. 104 A Sexual crimes (multiple offenses) Rape. Art. 205 - Rape or sexual intercourse with a person put in inability to resist art. 207 - Rape of a minor art. 208 - Rape of a person unable to resist art. 210 - Violent rape art. 206 - Sexual intercourse with a minor art. 209 - Rape of a person under protection art. 138 - Rape of a minor under protection Art. 138 A - Violent sexual intercourse with a person under protection Art. 139 and 139A Sexual harassment art. 210 A Sexual slavery in protected person art. 141 A Non Consensual abortion art. 123 Inducement of prostitution offences arts 213, 213 A, 214, 217, 219 Child pornography art. 218 Sexual exploitation of a minor art. 217 A Omission of filing a criminal complaint art. 219 B Assault (Lesiones personales dolosas) Art. 111 - 116 A, 136 ix. Rate formula: Rate by 100 thousand people = Total victims 2019* 100.000 Total municipal population DANE Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 90 1. TOTAL_VICTIMAS_FGN_GRUPODELITO_GENERO_AÑO 2. TASAX100MIL_GRUPODELITO_2019_GENERO 3. TOTAL_VICTIMAS_FGN_GRUPODELITO_ENFOQUEDIFERENCIAL_AÑO 4. TOTAL_PROCESOS_FGN_GRUPODELITO_AÑO THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 91 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Clearance rate of selected crimes. Name of Development Objective: Justice sector actors (prosecutors, investigators, defenders, and others, as relevant) use improved techniques and practices that focus on resolving high-impact crimes, including homicides of human rights defenders and social leaders, victims of gender-based violence, and victims of the conflict, thus reducing impunity and increasing citizen confidence in justice. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Proportion of cases (“noticias criminales”) and victims according to the Accusatory Oral Criminal System (Law 906 of 2004 and Law 1098 of 2006) for events occurred from 2016 to nov 2020, with (i) investigation pregress or clearance rate advancement, (ii) formal progress or clearance rate and (iii) conviction rate or judicial clearance rate according with FGN methodology. Unit of Measure: Noticias criminales and Victims (for homicide and “feminicidio”) Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2016, 2017,2018, 2019 and, nov 2020), B) Gender C) Offences: intentional homicide, feminicide, sexual violence (group of offences), domestic violence, assault. Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Accusatory Oral Criminal System (SPOA-FGN) Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to FGN. Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-nov 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 92 Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. Noticia criminal refers to a basic unit of analysis used as a criminal case by the FGN. In a minority of situations, it may contain more than one victim, criminal offence, offence or suspect. ii. Clearance rates are measured by the number of Noticias Criminales, except for intentional homicide and “feminicidio” that are measured by the number of victims. iii. FGN closes cases if it considers that a crime was not committed and excludes these from the case count. iv. Groups of crimes: Some offences include several articles of the penal code and respond to groups of crimes defined by the FGN. The articles included for each offense are specified below. Offences Articles. Ley 599 de 2000 Intentional Homicide Art. 103 Feminicide Art. 104 A Sexual crimes (multiple offenses) Rape. Art. 205 - Rape or sexual intercourse with a person put in inability to resist art. 207 - Rape of a minor art. 208 - Rape of a person unable to resist art. 210 - Violent rape art. 206 - Sexual intercourse with a minor art. 209 - Rape of a person under protection art. 138 - Rape of a minor under protection Art. 138 A - Violent sexual intercourse with a person under protection Art. 139 and 139A Sexual harassment art. 210 A Sexual slavery in protected person art. 141 A Non Consensual abortion art. 123 Inducement of prostitution offences arts 213, 213 A, 214, 217, 219 Child pornography art. 218 Sexual exploitation of a minor art. 217 A Omission of filing a criminal complaint art. 219 B Assault (Lesiones personales dolosas) Art. 111 - 116 A, 136 v. Each level of clearance (investigation progress or clearance rate advancement, formal progress or clearance rate, and conviction rate or judicial clearance rate) rate includes a group of actions that indicate that the perpetrator is identified. We used the actions listed by the FGN that are listed below. Clearance level Description Procedural actions “Avance de esclarecimiento” Investigation progress Aún no se materializa el esclarecimiento, pero la actuación respectiva antecede al mismo Ley 906, 1098 y 1826 (en lo aplicable): · Solicitud de audiencia imputación · Solicitud preclusión (muerte, amnistía, oblación) · Solicitud orden de captura o de aprehensión · Citación traslado al escrito de acusación · Contumacia y Declaratoria de persona ausente Específicas de Ley 600: · Versión libre · Apertura Inv. Previa “Esclarecimiento” Formal progress - Se le comunican los cargos a una persona. - Se le comunica al juez que la conducta delictiva existe y que el imputado es su autor o participe. - Se logra acuerdo luego del proceso de conciliación preprocesal, sin que el juez realice un control de legalidad. - El juez aprueba la renuncia al ejercicio de la acción penal. - El juez aprueba la extinción de la acción penal por preclusión (muerte, amnistía, oblación). Ley 906, 1098, 1826 y 600 (en lo aplicable): · Formulación de imputación · Traslado de escrito de acusación · Conciliación con acuerdo · Decreta legalidad captura o aprehensión · Autoriza orden de captura o aprehensión · Principio de oportunidad (interrupción y suspensión) · Extinción de la acción penal (muerte, amnistía, oblación, reparación integral) · Preclusión (muerte, amnistía, oblación) Específicas de Ley 600: · Indagatoria y ampliación · Declaratoria de persona ausente · Cesación de procedimiento “Esclarecimiento judicial” Conviction rates Sentencias condenatorias ejecutoriadas emitidas por el juez. · Aprobación del principio de oportunidad (renuncia) · Sentencia condenatorias y sancionatorias (acusación directa, 93 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV aceptación cargos o preacuerdos o sentencia anticipada). vi. Clearance rate formula: Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: 1.PORCENTAJE_ESCLARECIMIENTO_JURIDICO_FGN_GRUPODELITO_SEXO_AÑO. 2. PORCENTAJE_AVANCE_ESCLARECIMIENTO_FGN_GRUPODELITO_SEXO_AÑO. 3. PORCENTAJE_ESCLARECIMIENTO_FGN_GRUPODELITO_SEXO_AÑO THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 Clearance rate= 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 *100 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 94 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Cases in Procuraduría General de la Nación (PGN) related to allegations. Name of Development Objective: Justice sector actors (prosecutors, investigators, defenders, and others, as relevant) use improved techniques and practices that focus on resolving high-impact crimes, including homicides of human rights defenders and social leaders, victims of gender-based violence, and victims of the conflict, thus reducing impunity and increasing citizen confidence in justice. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Total number of disciplinary proceedings (accumulated since 2016 to nov 2020) in Procuraduría General de la Nación (PGN) against public servants for disciplinary offenses committed against a social leader or human rights defender. Unit of Measure: Individual disciplinary proceedings (cases) Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Case status (active / inactive). D) Cases with Archivo definitivo decision. All processes are consequently inactive. Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: GEDIS and SIM system PGN Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to PGN. Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-nov 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES 95 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. The information systems (GEDIS4 and SIM5) of the PGN depend on the updating from officials. The officials are responsible for the reliability and precision of the data contained herein, attending to circulars 009, 021, 038, 048 of 2009, 011 of 2017, and resolutions 068 of 2011 and 618 of 2017 of the FGN, as well as the current specific manual of functions and requirements for labor competencies. ii. The PGN did not have the variables we asked in their information system, so they did searches in open fields with key words. Thar means there is a risk of under or over reporting that can not be estimated. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: 1. PROCESOS_DISCIPLINARIOS_ACTIVOS_PGN_2016_2020. 2. PROCESOS_DISCIPLINARIOS_INACTIVOS_PGN_2016_2020. 3. PROCESOS_DISCIPLINARIOS_ARCHIVADOS_PGN_2016_2020 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 96 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Protection measures in domestic violence cases Name of Development Objective: Justice sector actors (prosecutors, investigators, defenders, and others, as relevant) use improved techniques and practices that focus on resolving high-impact crimes, including homicides of human rights defenders and social leaders, victims of gender-based violence, and victims of the conflict, thus reducing impunity and increasing citizen confidence in justice Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Number of protection measures requested by prosecutors to judges according to the Accusatory Oral Criminal System (Law 906 of 2004 and Law 1098 of 2006) from 2016 to nov 2020, and number of measures granted or denied by judges in domestic violence proceedings. Unit of Measure: protection measures requested, measures granted and measures denied by judges. Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2016, 2017, 2028, 2019, 2020) B) Domestic violence offenses (Art. 229 penal code) C) Type of victim: ethnic group Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Accusatory Oral Criminal System (SPOA-FGN) Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derecho de petición to FGN Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016- November 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: 97 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations: 1) The protection measures correspond to an action that can be registered many times for the same case or victim. 2) The data was processed and analyzed, using the case management information from the Accusatory Oral Criminal System, with a cut-off date of 05/11/20. This system has an adequate update level regarding the entry of noticias criminales, offenses and proceedings. 3) The SPOA information system is not well fed and updated, for variables including victims’ ethnicity, gender, and LGBTI status. 4) Cases are classified according to the date and place of events registered in SPOA. In some exceptions, incorrect case recording can mistake these with the dates or places of the complaint. The required information is presented for events registered between 2016 and 2020. 5) Most of the protection measures are adopted by Comisarias de familia, however there is not available data for their performance, so they were excluded. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database: 1. ACTUACION_MEDIDA_PROTRECCION_VIOLENCIA_INTRAFAMILIAR_ACTUACION_AÑO. 2. TOTAL_PROCESOS_PROCESOS_SOLICITUD_MEDIDA_VI_AÑO. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 98 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Approved registration requests RTDAF Name of Development Objective: Justice sector actors (prosecutors, investigators, defenders, and others, as relevant) use improved techniques and practices that focus on resolving high-impact crimes, including homicides of human rights defenders and social leaders, victims of gender-based violence, and victims of the conflict, thus reducing impunity and increasing citizen confidence in justice Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Number of Approvals of Registro de Tierras Despojadas y Abandonadas Forzosamente (RTDAF) from 2012 to nov 2020, and B) Year of micro-focusing by the Unidad Administrativa Especial de Gestion de Restitucion de Tierrns Desjiojadas (UAEGRTD). Unit of Measure: Approved registrations requests. Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2028, 2019, 2020) Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Unidad Administrativa Especial de Gestión de Restitución de Tierras Despojadas (UAEGRTD) Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derecho de petición to Unidad de Restitución de Tierras (URT) Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2012- November 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: 99 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations: The UAEGRTD is the administrative body in charge of land restitution affairs according to the Law 1448 of 2011. This law established both the administrative and judicial procedures that enables victims of the armed conflict, who were forced to abandon their lands, to seek the restitution and the legalization of their territory. The UAERGTD is also responsible for the administrative stage of the Land Restitution Procedure. In this stage, the claimants request the registration of their property in the Registro de Tierras Despojadas y Abandonadas Forzosamente or RTDAF. The UAEGRTD must receive all the requests, but only studies those that claim properties located in macro￾focused and micro-focused territories. A territory is macro- focused once the Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, together with the Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, decide if the geographical location of the land meets the security conditions required to guarantee the effective restitution. Micro- focused refers to specific portions of land located inside a macro- focused territory where the UAEGRTD has decided that it is, in fact, viable to carry out the registry. That is to say, The UAERGTD only initiates the administrative stage once the land requested in restitution has been micro- focused. This claim could culminate in three (3) of the following substantial decisions: (i) no formal study initiation, ii) non￾registration of the property in the registry and (iii) registration of the property in the RTDAF, which enables the claimant to go to the second stage of the restitution process. This indicator contains information regarding the first micro- focused territory per municipality, starting from 2012, all the way to December 15 2020. It measures as well, the number of administrative procedures that culminate with the registration in the RTDAF, again, from 2012 to December 15, 2020. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database: 1. SOLICITUDES_INSCRIPCION_RTDAF_AÑO 2. ANIO_ MICROFOCALIZACION_URT THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 100 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Registration requests RTDAF Name of Development Objective: Justice sector actors (prosecutors, investigators, defenders, and others, as relevant) use improved techniques and practices that focus on resolving high-impact crimes, including homicides of human rights defenders and social leaders, victims of gender-based violence, and victims of the conflict, thus reducing impunity and increasing citizen confidence in justice Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Registration requests in the Registro de Tierras Despojadas y Abandonadas Forzosamente (RTDAF) from 2012 to nov 2020. Unit of Measure: Registrations requests. Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2028, 2019, 2020) Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Unidad Administrativa Especial de Gestión de Restitución de Tierras Despojadas (UAEGRTD) Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derecho de petición to Unidad de Restitución de Tierras (URT) Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2012- November 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: 101 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations: This indicator measures the number of registration requests received by the Unidad Administrativa Especial para la Gestión de Restitución de Tierras or UAEGRTD. As stated in indicator 6, the UAEGRTD must receive all the registration requests, but will only study those that claim properties located in macro- focused and micro- focused territories. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database: 1. SOLICITUDES_URT_RTDAF_AÑO THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 102 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Land restitution jurisdiction UAEGRTD Name of Development Objective: Justice sector actors (prosecutors, investigators, defenders, and others, as relevant) use improved techniques and practices that focus on resolving high-impact crimes, including homicides of human rights defenders and social leaders, victims of gender-based violence, and victims of the conflict, thus reducing impunity and increasing citizen confidence in justice Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Requests for restitution and formalization presented by the Unidad Administrativa Especial de Gestion de Restitucion de Tierras Despojadas (UAEGRTD) to the judges specialized in land restitution (without sentence) from 2012 to nov 2020. B) Number of judgments issued respect to properties located in PDET municipalities from 2012 to nov 2020. C) Decision of the sentence. A sentence can have more than one judicial decision. D) Sentences issued by judges and civil magistrates specialized in land restitution by type of decision. E) Judicial decisions from 2012 to November 30, 2020, in which material restitution was carried out. Unit of Measure: Registrations requests. Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2028, 2019, 2020) B) Type of decision: restores, does not restore, compensates, and consultation stage. Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Grupo de Cumplimiento de Órdenes Judiciales y Articulación Institucional (COJAI) of The Unidad Administrativa Especial de Gestión de Restitución de Tierras Despojadas (UAEGRTD) Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derecho de petición to Unidad de Restitución de Tierras (URT) Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2012- November 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: 103 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations: During the second stage of the land restitution procedure (judicial), the case is brought to land restitution courts. The court decides whether the claimant is entitled to the right at stake. Besides, the court must present the necessary measures in order to carry out the material and legal restitution of the land. When material restitution is not possible, the law enables the courts to order a compensatory payment. This indicator measures the performance rate for land restitution jurisdiction according to the number of cases brought to land restitution courts. In this matter, the UAEGRTD only has the data of the cases brought to courts where the claimant granted power of attorney in order to exercise judicial representation. The indicator also contains data on the number of sentences issued by land restitution courts according to the type of judicial decision (restores, does not restore, compensates, and consultation stage) from 2012 to November 30, 2020. The UAERGTD clarifies that a sentence may contain more than one judicial decision. Lastly, the indicator includes the number of judicial decisions from 2012 to November 30, 2020, all in which material restitution was carried out. The land restitution courts, in addition to deciding on the right claimed, retain jurisdiction until the restitution of the property has been guaranteed. Concerning the data relating material restitution of the land, it has to be taken into account the fact that the data was collected by UAEGRTD officials, for cases where the entity is called upon court when land is about to be restituted. This means that the primary source for this data are land restitution courts and the most reliable information still rests there. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database: 1. SOLICITUDES_PRESENTADAS_UAEGRTD_AÑO 2. SENTENCIAS_PROFERIDAS_COJAI_UAEGRTD_AÑO 3. DECISION_SENTENCIA_COJAI_UAEGRTD_TIPODECISION_AÑO 4. SENTENCIAS_EMITIDAS_DECISICON_JUDICIAL_TIPODECISION_HASTANOV2020 5. PREDIOS_ENTREGA_MATERIAL_COJAI_UAEGRTD_HASTANOV2020. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 104 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Disappearance events documented by the UBDP. Name of Development Objective: Justice sector actors (prosecutors, investigators, defenders, and others, as relevant) use improved techniques and practices that focus on resolving high-impact crimes, including homicides of human rights defenders and social leaders, victims of gender-based violence, and victims of the conflict, thus reducing impunity and increasing citizen confidence in justice Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Number of disappearance events documented by the UBDP Unit of Measure: Disappearance events Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: N/A Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Search request registry (RSB) by the UBDP Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derecho de petición to UBDP Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2019 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. 105 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations: i. The concept of “Disappeared persons" refers to people whose fate or whereabouts are unknown to their relatives. The Missing Persons Search Unit takes cases of disappeared persons in the context of the armed conflict, for events occurred before December 1st 2016. These people may be missing due to different events, such as: - People who have been forcibly disappeared; - Kidnapped people who were not released; - Children or teenagers who have been recruited - forcibly and illegally - by actors in the armed conflict; or adults who have been constrained to serve in organized armed groups and / or in the armed forces of the opposing party; - Civilians or members of organized armed groups or armed forces disappeared during hostilities, whose fate or whereabouts are unknown to their relatives. ii. Even if we requested information about disappeared people, their database contains information about disappearance events rather than disappeared persons, but they did not clarify the difference between disappeared persons and disappearance events. iii. According to the article 5 of the Decree 589 of 2017, the Search for Missing Persons Unit should establish the universe of people reported missing in the context of the armed conflict from the contribution of confidential information and sources, Therefore, the statistics do not represent the total cases of disappearance. iv. The bodies recovered by the Search for Missing Persons Unit are in the process identification carried out by the INML. No body recovered by the Search for Missing Persons Unit has been identified to date. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database: 1. UBPD_HECHOS_DESAPARICION_CORTENOV2020. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 106 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Disappeared persons identified Name of Development Objective: Justice sector actors (prosecutors, investigators, defenders, and others, as relevant) use improved techniques and practices that focus on resolving high-impact crimes, including homicides of human rights defenders and social leaders, victims of gender-based violence, and victims of the conflict, thus reducing impunity and increasing citizen confidence in justice. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Disappeared persons identified and not identified per municipality by the institutions with identification laboratories (INML, CTI and PN) Unit of Measure: Disappeared persons Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2016, 2017,2018, 2019 and, oct 2020) B) Gender Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: INML Method of Data Collection and Construction: Open source INML https://www.medicinalegal.gov.co/cifras-de-lesiones-de-causa-externa Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-oct 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations 107 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV i. We originally requested information to INML, PN and FG. INML was the only information available at the reporting time. ii. The PN informed there was no available information by municipality. iii. The system administrated by INML includes the followig souerces: Centro de Identificación Humana, Comisión Búsqueda Personas Desaparecidas, Fiscalía - Cuerpo Técnico Investigación, Fiscalía - Desaparicion Forzada y Desplazamiento Forzado, Fiscalía - Unidad Justicia y Paz, Fiscalía General de la Nación Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses, Ministerio de Salud y Proteccion Social, Personería Policía Nacional. iv. Even if INML its supposed to include the data from FG, we also requested information directly to FGN as the information reported to INML is not totally updated. However, we did not received an answer from FGN. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: We insisted in the derecho de petición to FG and expect to receive the information on late December. Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: 1. DESAPARECIDOS_GENERO/TOTAL_INML_AÑO 2. CADAVERES_NO_IDENTIFICADOS_INML_AÑO THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 108 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Justice sector institutional capacity. Name of Development Objective: Community-based and state-led dispute resolution services, including indigenous justice and Afro-Colombian traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, equity conciliators, Justice Houses, and others, are strengthened to provide greater access to quality justice, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Permanent courts by category and specialty. B) Workload (general and average) of Judges and Judicial Officials in the Courts. C) Total number of judges / magistrates. D) Rate of judges per 10 thousand inhabitants. Population data retrieved from CNPV. E) Courts-judges proportion. F) Judicial police officials (PN). G) Total number of prosecutors, prosecutors assistants and judicial police officers at FGN. H) Total number of Casas de Justicia, Centros de Conciliación, Centros de Convivencia Ciudadana, Centros Administrativos/Juzgados, Comisarias de Familia and Inspecciones de Policía. I) Institutional offer rate per 10 thousand inhabitants. Population data retrieved from CNPV. J) Total staff at Family Commissaries. K) Total number of public defenders by judicial circuit. Unit of Measure: Officials, case workload , Casas de Justicia, Centros de Conciliación, Centros de Convivencia Ciudadana, Centros Administrativos/Juzgados, Comisarias de Familia and Inspecciones de Policía Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: CSJ: A) Year (2016,2017,2018,2019) B) Specialty (Civil, Penal, Laboral and Administrativa), jurisdiction (type of court) and district to which the municipality is part. FGN: C) FGN officials level: Especializado, Seccional, Local y Tribunal. PN: D) Year (2016,2017,2018,2019 and nov 2020) DNP: E) Justice sector institutional capacity Year 2016. Type of Institutional offer (Casas de Justicia, Centros de Conciliación, Centros de Convivencia Ciudadana, Centros Administrativos/Juzgados, Comisarias de Familia and Inspecciones de Policía). PGN F) Total staff at Family Commissaries in 2018. Permanent staff: commissar. Regular staff: secretary, social worker, psychologist, and physician. DP H) Number of public defenders by judicial circuit. I) year (2016, 2017, 2019, 2020) 109 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: DNP, FGN, CSJ, PN, PGN Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to DNP, CSJ, FGN, PGN and PN. Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. Actual input definition for judicial authorities: refers to the new demand for justice, excluding proceedings that have passed from one Court to another without a final decision in the instance. That is to say: inputs from re￾entries, inputs from other re-entries, inputs from decongestion, inputs from loss of competence, inputs from change of location, inputs due to nullity, input due to exclusion and inputs from renewal of proceedings. ii. Actual output definition for judicial authorities: refers to the outputs of the Courts. Actual refers to decisions that put an end to the instance, excluding decisions such as: Expenses for decongestion, expenses sent to other courts, expenses for deserted or abandoned proceedings, expenses for loss of competence, and expenses for change of location. iii. Workload definition: total number of initial inventories and effective demand per court for each year and aggregated by the qualitative variables delivered, namely: year, specialty, competence, judicial district. iv. The overall workload is the total number of the total workload of the courts, taking into account the aggregation of qualitative variables, and the average workload, which refers to the average workload per office for aggregations mentioned. v. Rate formula: Rate per 10 thousand people= Total judges 2019*100.000 Total municipal population (DANE) vi. The number of prosecutors, assistant prosecutors and judicial police officers assigned to the municipalities corresponds to the data registered in the SPOA, according to the unit where the officials are assigned on the information system and not to information on the staff. Data for single prosecutors or assistant prosecutors is not reported, because a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor can be assigned to several offices with different levels or competencies. vii. An official of the FGN can be assigned the same year to different offices in different municipalities, for this reason the data reported does not correspond to unique records per person. viii. The total number of institutions corresponds to the sum of institutions by municipality according to the information registered by DNP. There is no updated information about the institutional capacity in DNP. ix. Public Defenders are hired by judicial circuits, instead of municipalities. Judicial Circuits can group more than one municipality, as established by Resolution 1009 of 2018. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 110 x. In 2018 and 2019 the PGN carried out a diagnosis on the organization, structure and operation of Comisarías de Familiacalled Segunda Vigilancia superior a las comisarías de familia, requesting information from the 1.273 commissaries in Colombia in 2018-2019. The PGN obtained an average response rate of 69%. The PGN inquired about the formation of the Comisarías de Familia, considering the following positions: Family Commissioner, Secretary, Psychologist, Social Worker, Doctor, Other. In 2018, of the 170 PDET municipalities, 83 of them, equivalent to the 48.8%, reported information on the staff assigned to the commissaries. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: 1.CARGA_LABORAL_PROMEDIO_ESPECIALIDAD_COMPETENCIA_DISTRITO_AÑO 2.CARGA_LABORAL_GENERAL_ESPECIALIDAD_COMPETENCIA_DISTRITO_AÑO 3.TOTAL_JUECES/MAGISTRADOS_CSJ_2020 4.TASA_JUECES_X10MILHABITANTES_2020 5.RAZON_JUECES_JUZGADOS_2020 6.CANTIDAD_FUNCIONARIOS_POLICIA_JUDICIAL_AÑO 7. TOTAL_ORDENES_POLICIA_JUDICIAL_AÑO 8. FICALES_COMPETENCIA_DESPACHO_COMPETENCIADESPACHO 9. TOTAL_FISCALES_DESPACHO_SPOA 10. TOTAL_ASISTENTES_FISCALES_SPOA 12.TOTAL_FUNCIONARIOS_POLICIA_JUDICIAL_SPOA 13.TOTAL_CASAS_JUSTICIA_2016. 14.TOTAL_CENTROS_CONVICENCIA_CIUDADANA_2016. 15.TOTAL_COMISARIAS_FAMILIA_2016. 16.TOTAL_INSTITUCIONES_JUSTICIA_2016. 17.TOTAL_CENTROS_CONCIALIACIÓN_2016. 18.TOTAL_CENTROS_ADMINISTRATIVOS_JUZGADOS_2016. 19.TOTAL_INSPECCIONES_POLICIA_2016. 20.TASA_OFERTA_JUSTICA_10MILHABITANTES_DNP2016. 21. TOTAL_PERSONAL_COMISARIAS_FAMILIAS_2018. 22. DEFENSORES_PUBLICOS_CIRCUITO_AÑO THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 111 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Value of public funds allocated for access to justice Name of Development Objective: Community-based and state-led dispute resolution services, including indigenous justice and Afro-Colombian traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, equity conciliators, Justice Houses, and others, are strengthened to provide greater access to quality justice, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Value of public funds allocated for access to justice activities in annual municipal budgets. Relative to the local population. Unit of Measure: Value of public funds Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (for some municipalities) Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Municipalities Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to municipalities Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016- 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 112 - This information is not public and the access has been difficult due to the lack of capacities in municipalities. As we explained in the report, for this indicator, we sent 54 derechos de petición asking for this budget information. As of December 18, we received 16 responses. Of these, only 5 really gave useful information for this indicator. - For complementary information we also sent a derecho de petición to CSJ asking for municipal budgets for justice and, as of December 18, we did not receive an answer. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: We insisted in the derecho de petición to municipalities and call each of them for follow up. Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: 1. AS THE INFORMATION CURRENTLY INCLUDES ONLY 5 OBSERVATIONS, THE VARIABLE HAS NOT BEEN CHARACTERIZED. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 113 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Remote criminal reporting Name of Development Objective: Community-based and state-led dispute resolution services, including indigenous justice and Afro-Colombian traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, equity conciliators, Justice Houses, and others, are strengthened to provide greater access to quality justice, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) This indicator contains information regarding the proportion of criminal complaints filed through the virtual platform “A Denunciar” per year according to the SPOA, against the number of criminal complaints filed through non virtual channels per year. Unit of Measure: Criminal complaints Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Virtual and non-virtual complaints B) Year Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: SPOA-FGN Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derecho de Petición to FGN Reporting Frequency: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at PF: USAID TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-nov 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 114 FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations: i. FGN closes cases if it considers that a crime was not committed and excludes these from the case count. Other than that, the FGN didn’t provide further information on the interpretation of this data. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database 1. DENUNCIAS_SPOA_AÑO_MODALIDAD, TOTAL_DENUNCIAS_SPOA_2016_NOV2020 2. PARTICIPACION_VIRTUAL2020 y PARTICIPACION_VIRTUAL2019 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: 115 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Planned or implemented access to justice mobile brigades. Name of Development Objective: Community-based and state-led dispute resolution services, including indigenous justice and Afro-Colombian traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, equity conciliators, Justice Houses, and others, are strengthened to provide greater access to quality justice, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Total Attended victims in brigades of the Unidad Móvil de Atención y Orientación (Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho). B) Total Attended victims in brigades of Access to Justice by the Dirección de Métodos Alternativos de Solución de Conflictos (DMASC -Ministerio Justicia y del Derecho). C) Total Attended victims in brigades of Justicia Transicional (FGN). D) Total Attended victims in briagades (Jornadas de Información Comunitaria) of the Unidad Administrativa Especial de Gestion de Restitucion de Tierras Despojadas (URT). Unit of Measure: Victims attended. Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2016, 2017,2018, 2019 and, second semester 2020), B) Type of victim: ethnic group, LGBTI, pregnant women. C) Leader of the brigade: Unidad Móvil de Atención y Orientación (Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho), Dirección de Métodos Alternativos de Solución de Conflictos (DMASC -Ministerio Justicia y del Derecho) and Justicia Transicional (FGN) Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Responses to Derechos de petición from FGN, Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho, URT Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to FGN, Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho, Ministerio del Interior, URT, Defensoría del Pueblo. Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-nov 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 116 FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. The brigade of Access to Justice by the DMASC -Ministerio Justicia y del Derecho carry out justice administration services to various municipalities of the national territory, in accordance with the annual prioritization that is established. The brigades are developed on issues of conciliation in law, citizen coexistence, agrarian conciliation, conciliation in equity, justice and citizenship, and within the framework of the Conciliatón Nacional. There is not information of total numbers of attended persons for 2016. See Derechos de Petición for more information about the brigades. ii. In 2020 there were not brigades by the DMASC, due to the COVID-19 emergency. iii. The Unidad Móvil de Atención y Orientación (Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho) develops brigades in which victims of the armed conflict effectively access to justice, have the possibility to make statements to the Ministerio Público, receive legal assistance and psycho-legal guidance from the Personeria del Pueblo and start or continue with the procedures and processes that are being carried out before the Unidad Móvil de Atención y Orientación (Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho). See Derechos de Petición for more information about the brigades. iv. The desegregations of type of victim applies just for the brigadas of the Unidad Móvil de Atención y Orientación (Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho). v. The brigades of Justicia Transicional (FGN) seek to guarantee the rights of the victims in a strategic place and easily accessible to the population, in order to facilitate access to the administration of justice and offer all the services provided by each entity, in order to provide adequate services. See Derechos de Petición for more information about the brigades. vi. The Ministerio del Interior lacks the legal competence to carry out justice brigades in PDET municipalities according to their response to our petition. vii. The URT develops brigades or "Jornadas de Información comunitaria" where the victims of the armed conflict receive legal assistance on land restitution issues, specifically, the application of the Law 1448 of 2011, the administrative functions of the UAEGRTD and land restitution procedures, in order to educate the victims about the rights granted by the land restitution public policy. viii. Defensoría del Pueblo provided data disaggregated by departamentos, instead of municipalities. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: 1. JUMAV_ENFOQUE_2016_2020. 2. PERSONSAS_ATENDIDAS_JORNADAS_MOVILES_DMASC_AÑO. 3. JORNADAS_ATENCION_FGN_VICTIMAS_ATENDIDAS_AÑO. 4. PARTICIPANTES_JORNADAS_COMUNITARIAS_URT_2016 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 117 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Indigenous authorities exercising justice functions Name of Development Objective: Community-based and state-led dispute resolution services, including indigenous justice and Afro-Colombian traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, equity conciliators, Justice Houses, and others, are strengthened to provide greater access to quality justice, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): i. Indigenous authorities exercising justice functions in each municipality. Unit of Measure: Indigenous authorities Data Type: Disaggregated by: A) Indigenous population B) Total population C) Indigenous sq km D) Total sq km E) Year: 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Registry of Indigenous authorities and Cabildos Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derecho de petición to Ministerio del Interior Reporting Frequency: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at PF: USAID TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-nov 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 118 FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations: i. The registry carried out by the Ministerio del Interior grants administrative effects and legal status to the Cabildos and / or Indigenous Authorities. That is to say, the registry entitles the Indigenous Authority to exercise public functions (jurisdictional, administrative and political tasks), but it’s important to clarify that there’s not a specific registry for indigenous authorities exercising justice functions. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Variable Classification in database: 1. AUTORIDADES_INDIGENAS_REGISTRADAS_AÑO. Other Notes (optional): THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: 119 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Cases with victims and perpetrator from an ethnic group. Name of Development Objective: Community-based and state-led dispute resolution services, including indigenous justice and Afro-Colombian traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, equity conciliators, Justice Houses, and others, are strengthened to provide greater access to quality justice, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Total number of cases (“noticias criminales”) according to the Accusatory Oral Criminal System (Law 906 of 2004 and Law 1098 of 2006) for events occurred from 2016 to nov 2020 in which the accused belongs to an ethnic group. B) Total number of cases (“noticias criminales”) according to the Accusatory Oral Criminal System (Law 906 of 2004 and Law 1098 of 2006) for events occurred from 2016 to nov 2020 in which the victim belongs to an ethnic group. Unit of Measure: Noticias criminales Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2016, 2017,2018, 2019 and, nov 2020), B) Type of victim: ethnic group. Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Accusatory Oral Criminal System (SPOA-FGN) Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to FGN. Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-nov 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 120 Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. Noticia criminal refers to a basic unit of analysis used as a criminal case by the FGN. In a minority of situations, it may contain more than one victim, criminal offence, offence or suspect. ii. FGN closes cases if it considers that a crime was not committed and excludes these from the case count. iii. Counts for all crimes underestimate true victimization levels, because of insufficient reporting to authorities. For most crimes, the majority of victims do not file a complaint. And some homicides in violent localities are unknown to criminal justice authorities. We did not find national and systematic data about the level of unreported crime, but there are some crime specific studies or local anecdotal accounts that confirm these issues. iv. The SPOA information system is not well fed and updated, for variables including victims’ ethnicity. v. Cases are classified according to the date and place of events registered in SPOA. In some exceptions, incorrect case recording can mistake these with the dates or places of the complaint. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: 1. PORCENTAJE_PROCESOS_PERTENCIA_GRUPO_ETNICO_AÑO 2. PROCESOS_VICTIMA_SI_PERTENECE_GRUPO_ETNICO_AÑO THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 121 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Afro-Colombian authorities exercising justice Name of Development Objective: Community-based and state-led dispute resolution services, including indigenous justice and Afro-Colombian traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, equity conciliators, Justice Houses, and others, are strengthened to provide greater access to quality justice, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Number of Afro-Colombian authorities enrolled in the Registry of Community Councils and Organizations of NARP Population Unit of Measure: Number Afro-Colombian authorities Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year: 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Registry of Community Councils and Organizations of NARP Population Method of Data Collection and Construction: Open sources at Datos Abiertos – Gov.co https://www.datos.gov.co/en/dataset/Consejos-Comunitarios-Inscritos-en-la-Direcci-n-de/wiv3-negx Reporting Frequency: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at PF: USAID TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016- December 2019 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 122 FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations: According to the Ministerio del Interior there is not a registry of Afro-Colombian authorities exercising justice, but rather a national registry of Community Councils for NARP communities, which in contrast with indigenous reservations do not their own jurisdiction recognized by the constitution. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database: 1. TOTAL_CONSEJOS_NARP_2019 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: 123 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Disputes by government-trained ADR Name of Development Objective: Community-based and state-led dispute resolution services, including indigenous justice and Afro-Colombian traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, equity conciliators, Justice Houses, and others, are strengthened to provide greater access to quality justice, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Number of disputes resolved by government-trained alternative dispute resolution (ADR) providers. B) Number of conciliation audiences by Comisarías de Familia. C) Number of cases of domestic violence registered by Comisarías de Familia. D) Number of Medidas de Protección Inmediatas in cases of domestic violence at Comisarías de Familia. E) Number of Medidas de Protección Definitivas in cases of domestic violence at Comisarías de Familia. F) Number of Medidas de Restablecimiento de Derechos. Unit of Measure: Number of disputes, cases and resolutions. Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: MinJusticia A) Year: 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. B) Type of request: Civil and Commercial, Community, Contentious Administrative, Family, Labor and Criminal C) Conciliation result: Conciliación Total, Conciliación Parcial, Acuerdo Extraconciliación, Constancia de Acuerdo, Asunto No Conciliable, Constancia de Inasistencia, Falta de Competencia, Falta Pago de Servicio, Desistimiento de una o Ambas Partes, Otros, Retiro de la Solicitud. PGN D) Year: 2017 E) Type of audience: Custodia y regimen de visitas sobre menores e incapaces, Asuntos relacionadas con obligaciones alimentarias, Separación de bienes y de cuerpos, Conflictos sobre capitulaciones matrimoniales, Declaración de la unión marital de hecho, su disolución y la liquidación de la sociedad, Controversias entre cónyuges sobre dirección conjunta del hogar y entre padres sobre el ejercicio de la autoridad paterna o la patria potestad and Rescisión de la partición de las sucesiones y en las liquidaciones de sociedad conyugal o de sociedad patrimonial entre compañeros permanentes. F) Audiences with agreement and without agreement. G) Medidas de Protección of cases of domestic violence: Medidas correctivas, Actas de amonestación, Cauciones de comportamiento conyugal and Conciliación. H) Type of Medidas de Protección Definitivas: a. El desalojo de la casa de habitación que comparte con la víctima cuando constituya una amenaza para la vida la integridad física o la salud de cualquiera de los miembros, b. Abstenerse de penetrar en cualquier USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 124 lugar donde se encuentre la víctima, c. Prohibir al agresor esconder o trasladar de la residencia a los niños, niñas y personas discapacitadas en situación de indefensión, miembros del grupo familiar, d. Tratamiento reeducativo y terapéutico en una institución pública o privada que ofrezca tales servicios, a costa del agresor, e. El pago de los gastos de orientación y asesoría jurídica, médica, psicológica y psíquica que requiera la víctima, f. una protección temporal especial de la víctima por parte de las autoridades de policía, g. Acompañamiento a la víctima para su reingreso al lugar de domicilio, h. Decidir provisionalmente el régimen de visitas, la guarda y custodia de los hijos e hijas, i. Suspender al agresor la tenencia, porte y uso de armas, j. Decidir provisionalmente quién tendrá a su cargo las pensiones alimentarias, k. Decidir provisionalmente el uso y disfrute de la vivienda familiar, l. Prohibir al agresor la realización de cualquier acto de enajenación o gravamen de bienes de su propiedad sujetos a registro and m. Ordenar al agresor la devolución inmediata de los objetos de uso personal, documentos de identidad y cualquier otro documento u objeto de propiedad o custodia de la víctima. Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: PGN and Sistema de Información de la Conciliación, el Arbitraje y la Amigable Composición - SICAAC Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derecho de petición to Ministerio de Justicia and PGN Reporting Frequency: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at PF: USAID TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016- December 2019 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations: I. Information on the procedures, conciliations, and powers of the SICAAC are explained on the website of the Ministry of Justice (https://www.sicaac.gov.co/) II. In 2018 the PGN carried out a diagnosis on the organization, structure and operation of Comisarías de Familia called Segunda Vigilancia superior a las comisarías de familia, requesting information from the 1.273 commissaries in Colombia in 2018-2019. The PGN obtained an average response rate of 69%. In 2018, of the 170 PDET municipalities, 83 of them, equivalent to the 48.8%, reported information on the number of conciliation audiences, cases of domestic violence and medidas de protección for the year 2017. 125 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database: 1. SICAAC_AÑO_SOLICITUDES_TIPOSOLICITUD. 2. SICAAC_AÑO_SOLICITUDES_TOTALE. 3. SICAAC_AÑO_RESULTADO_TIPORESULTADO. 4. TOTAL_PERSONAL_COMISARIAS_FAMILIAS_2018 5. SOLICITUDES_AUDIENCIAS_CONCILIACION_COMISARIAS_2017 6. AUDIENCIAS_COMISARIAS_CON_ACUERDO_CONCILIACION_2017 7. AUDIENCIAS_COMISARIAS_SIN_ACUERDO_CONCILIACION_2017 8. AUDIENCIAS_CONCILIACION_COMISARIAS_TIPOCONCILIACION_2017 9. CASOS_VIOLENCIA_INTRAFAMILIAR_COMISARIAS_2017 10. MEDIDAS_CORRECTIVAS_AMONESTACION_CAUCIONES_VIOLENCIA_INTRAFAMILIAR_ COMISARIAS_2017 11. CONCILIACION_VIOLENCIA_INTRAFAMILIAR_COMISARIAS_2017 12. MEDIDAS_PROTECCION_INMEDIATA_VIOLENCIA_INTRAFAMILIAR_COMISARIAS_2017 13. MEDIDAS_PROTECCION_DEFINITIVA_VIOLENCIA_INTRAFAMILIAR_COMISARIAS_2017 14. TIPO_MEDIDA_PROTECCION_DEFINITIVA_VIOLENCIA_INTRAFAMILIAR_TIPOMEDIDA_2 017 15. MEDIDAS_REESTABLECIMIENTO_INFANCIAyADOLESCENCIA_COMISARIAS_2017 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 126 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Cases input and output. Name of Development Objective: Community-based and state-led dispute resolution services, including indigenous justice and Afro-Colombian traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, equity conciliators, Justice Houses, and others, are strengthened to provide greater access to quality justice, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Case input and output for Judges at the municipal level. B) Average Input of Noticias Criminales by prosecutor from FGN. Unit of Measure: Cases Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2016, 2017,2018 and 2019), B) Despachos Promiscuos C) Court specialty (Penal, laboral, civil, administrative y familiar) D) Output categories for cases assigned to judges: effective outputs (Egresos Efectivos),output by sentence (Egresos por Sentencias), output by substancial decisión (Egresos por Auto Decisión de Fondo), output by agreement (Egresos por Autos Conciliación), output by payment (Egresos por Auto Pago), output by execution (Egresos por Autos Ordena Seguir Adelante la Ejecución), output by dismissal (Egresos por Autos Preclusión), output by withdrowal (Egresos por Desistimiento Tácito), output by conviction compliance (Egresos por Liberación Cumplimiento de Pena JEPMS), output by other categories (Egresos por Otras), output by remission to other judge (Egresos Remitidos a Otros Despachos), output by rejection (Egresos por Rechazados o Retirados). Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Accusatory Oral Criminal System (SPOA-FGN) and CSJ. Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to CSJ and FGN. Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016- 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: 127 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. This indicator contains information regarding case input and output organized according to the level and specialty of the court. The inputs by municipality correspond to new cases by year. The outputs correspond to actions that inactivate the case. ii. The information regarding the outputs includes a wide range of actions that have in common the effect of inactivating the case, but may refer to very different types situations Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: 1. INGRESOS_EFECTIVOS__ESPECIALIDAD_AÑO 2. EGRESOS_FORMAEGRESO_ESPECIALIDA_AÑO 3. INGRESOS_EFECTIVOS_PROMISCUO_AÑO 4. EGRESOS_FORMAEGRESO_AÑO 5. PROMEDIO_PROCESOS_ASIGNADOS_SPOA_AÑO 6. INGRESOS_PROCESOS_FGN_GRUPODELITO_AÑO THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 128 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Organized crime and non-state actors’ presence. Name of Development Objective: Municipality context. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Total number of armed groups / organizations that are located and carry out violent acts in the municipality for the period 2016-2020. Unit of Measure: Armed groups Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: N/A Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: INDEPAZ Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to INDEPAZ. Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-nov 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. All INDEPAZ investigations are based on methodologies that group different sources of information, such as: Government officials reports, communications and alerts of risk of social organizations or communities found throughout the National territory; and largely published news, articles or columns in national and foreign media (newspapers, magazines, web portals, radio stations, television newscasts), finally there are into account reports published by different NGOs, among others with studies related. 129 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ii. The presence of armed groups is generalized in the municipality. However, in some cases the occupation groups of certain areas of the municipalities, such as townships or veredas and not necessarily the entire territory. iii. The armed groups (GAOr, GAO and GDO) are in constant confrontations over the dispute over territory, which translates into constant changes regarding the presence of armed groups in the regions. This makes it difficult to establish their presence in the municipalities. iv. In the case of the presence of GAOr in the PDET areas, it is noted that in recent months there have been processes of formation of new structures, alliances and reconfigurations, which changes data from previous years, where the presence of 2 groups was indicated that today they can be the same. v. For the year 2016, INDEPAZ did not carry out an analysis on the presence of GAOr in the country, so the data referring to 2017 is attached. vi. In the case of the GAO ELN, the analysis for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2019, is under review and confirmation. It is not included within the attachment. vii. The presence of armed groups (GAO, GAOr and GDO) for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2020 is under investigation and confirmation, therefore the results are partial for certain regions. viii. We group the presence of all armed groups per municipality due to the data limitations. This measure captures the magnitude of armed presence between 2016 and nov 2020. However, the magnitude is in constant change. ix. For this indicator we requested information from various public entities (FGN and armed forces), but we did not received an answer by the closing date. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: We insisted in all the derechos de petición, in order to gain access to the data Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: ORGANIZACIONES_ARMADAS_INDEPAZ_2016_2020 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 130 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Rurality Level Name of Development Objective: Municipality context. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type:USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A)Rurality level for each municipality according to Law 617 of 2000 Unit of Measure: Rurality level Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: N/A Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Categorization of departments, districts and municipalities by Contaduría General de la Nación Method of Data Collection and Construction: Open sources at Contaduría General de la Nación https://www.contaduria.gov.co/categorizacion-de-departamentos-distritos-y-municipios Reporting Frequency: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at PF: USAID TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: USAID Date of Baseline: 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database 131 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations: Rurality Levels according to DNP (Law 617 of 2020) Rurality level Group Population Municipal seat %Population countryside Density Sq Km Included in a city system Counting of municipalities Cities and agglomerations (1) 11 >100.000 N/A N/A Si 110 Intermediate (2) 21 22 23 31 >25.000 and <100.000 <25.000 <25.000 >25.000 and <100.00 N/A <70% >70% N/A >10 >50 >100 <=10 No No No No 325 Rural (3) 32 33 41 <25.000 <25.000 <25.000 <70% >70% <70% >10 and <=50 >50 and <=100 <=40 No No No 367 Rural scattered (4) 42 43 <25.000 <25.000 >70% >70% >10 and <=50 <+10 No No 300 Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database: 1. CATEGORIA_LEY_617 2. CATEGORIA_RURALIDAD. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 132 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Percentage of indigenous and afro-Colombian population Name of Development Objective: Municipality Context Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A)Percentage of population by ethnicity and women according to the CNPV 2018- DANE. Unit of Measure: Population Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: 1. Year (2018) 2. Ethnicity: indigenous population, raizal people, palenquero de San Basilio, Rom or Gypsy, mulatto, and Afro- Colombian or Afro-descendant population. 3. Women (Population projection 2019 and 2020). Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: CNPV 2018- DANE Method of Data Collection and Construction: Open sources at DANE https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/demografia-y-poblacion/grupos￾etnicos/informacion-tecnica http://microdatos.dane.gov.co/index.php/catalog/643/get_microdata Reporting Frequency: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: USAID Individual(s) Responsible at PF: USAID TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2018 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: 133 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Known Data Limitations: N/A Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database: POB_ENFOQUE_ETNICO_CNPV_2018 POB_MUJERES_2018, PORCENTAJE_MUJERES2018 POB_MUJERES_2019, PORCENTAJE_MUJERES2019 POB_MUJERES_2020, PORCENTAJE_MUJERES2020 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 134 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: 1Multidimensional Poverty Index. Name of Development Objective: Municipality context. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Multidimensional Poverty Index Unit of Measure: Households with multidimensional poverty Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: N/A Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: DNP Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to DNP. Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2018 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) is an index of five quality of life dimensions which do not include income. The index allows the analysis of multiple dimensions of poverty that can be simultaneously experienced by a household. In Colombia, the MPI consists of five dimensions, all of which are measured at the household level: i) educational conditions, ii) conditions of childhood and youth, iii) health, iv) work and v) housing conditions and home public services. These dimensions are divided into 15 variables and a household with deprivation in at least 5 variables (representing 33% of the deprivation) is considered multidimensionally poor (DNP, 2011). 135 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ii. The results of the index by municipality correspond to the average of the households. iii. For methodological issues consult this link: https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Desarrollo%20Social/Documento%20de%20An%C3%A1lisis%20de%20las%20Cifras%20de%2 0Pobreza%202018.pdf Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: MEDIDA_POBREZA_MULIDIMENSIONAL_DNP2018 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 136 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Internet penetration Name of Development Objective: Municipality Context Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Fixed broadband internet penetration index Unit of Measure: Fixed broadband Internet subscribers Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A) Year (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020) B) Population Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Fixed broadband internet penetration index from Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicaciones Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derecho de petición to Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicaciones Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016- 2020 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES 137 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Known Data Limitations: Calculation methodology for the index Internet penetration is measured by the number of fixed broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. The methodology to calculate the index is described below: 1. A4 Fixed broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants: A4 refers to the number of fixed broadband internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Fixed broadband internet subscribers refers to entities (companies, people) that pay for high-speed access to the public internet (TCP / IP connection). High-speed access is defined as having a speed equal to or higher than 256 kbit / s, in one or both directions. Fixed broadband internet includes cable modem, DSL, fiber optics, and other fixed broadband technologies (such as satellite broadband internet, Ethernet LAN, fixed wireless access, Wireless Local Area Network, and WiMax). Subscribers who have access to data transmission (including internet) through mobile networks are excluded. 2. The number of broadband internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants is obtained by dividing the number of fixed broadband internet subscribers by the total number of inhabitants and then multiplying by 100. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: USAID Other Notes (optional): Variable Classification in database: IP_AFI_MINTIC_4T-AÑO THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 138 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Financial performance (level of budgetary execution) Name of Development Objective: Municipality context. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Fiscal Performance Index Unit of Measure: numeric/categorical Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: N/A Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: DNP Method of Data Collection and Construction: DNP open source. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Desarrollo%20Territorial/Bolet%C3%ADn-Resultados-Indice-Desempeno-Fiscal￾2019.pdf Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2019 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. The Fiscal Performance Index is a measure of the financial management performance of territorial entities that measure financial sustainability around fiscal viability, capacity to generate own resources, indebtedness, 139 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV investment levels and financial management capacity in the municipalities and departments of the country. Its objective is to measure the fiscal management of territorial entities in order to identify good practices in the management of public finances and strengthen territorial technical assistance. ii. Ranges of the New Fiscal Performance Index: Range Description Sustainable (>80 points) municipalities enjoy healthy finances, comply with legal limits of debt and expense generate own resources and high spending on FBK. In the long run they have greater capacity to provide goods and services. They also present better conditions of financial sustainability, compared to the rest. Solvent (between 70-80 points) Municipalities have healthy finances, but there are opportunities for improvement in some indicators. Vulnerable (between 60 y 70 points) Municipalities that can meet legal debt and spending limits, but still they have high dependence on transfers and low levels of investment in FBK. Risk (between 40 y 60 pints) Municipalities that are at risk of deficit or have a high level of indebtedness or flaws in their report of debt. They are highly dependent on transfers and low levels of investment in FBK. Deterioration <=40 puntos These municipalities are at risk of deficit or have high indebtedness or flaws in your debt report. They are highly dependent on transfers and low levels of investment in FBK, but its indicators are lower than those of the group of risk. iii. For methodological issues and results consult this link: https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Desarrollo%20Territorial/Bolet%C3%ADn-Resultados-Indice-Desempeno-Fiscal￾2019.pdf Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: 1.NUEVO_IDF_2019 2.NUEVO_IDF_SINBONOS_2019 3.RANGO_IDF_2019. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 140 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Coca average planting density. Name of Development Objective: Municipality context. Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A) Hectares of coca per municipality Unit of Measure: Hectares of coca Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by A) Year: 2016-2019 Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Observatorio de Drogas Colombia (ODC) Method of Data Collection and Construction: Open source: ODC Datos Abiertos http://www.odc.gov.co/sidco/perfiles/estadisticas-nacionales Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-2019 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. Coca average planting density requires the hectares per municipality and the number of hectares of coca fields. Without the hectares per municipality (information to be answered by Instituto Agustin Codazzi) the indicator is partially constructed with open source. 141 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: USAID Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): USAID CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variable classification in database: HECTAREAS_COCA_AÑO THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: Dec 2020 USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 142 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET (PIRS) Name of Indicator: Number of cases and victims of threats, extorsion, illegal recruitment and illegal constraint. Name of Development Objective: Municipality Context Name of Intermediate Result: USAID Name of Sub-Intermediate Result: USAID Indicator Type: USAID DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): A. Total number of cases (“noticias criminales”) and victims according to the Accusatory Oral Criminal System (Law 906 of2004 and Law 1098 of 2006) for events occurred from 2016 to nov 2020. B. Victimization rate per 100 thousand persons. Population data retrieved from CNPV Unit of Measure: Noticias criminales and victims Data Type: USAID Disaggregated by: A. Year (2016, 2017,2018, 2019 and, nov 2020), B. Offenses: threats, extorsion, illegal recruitment and illegall constraint. C. Type of victim: ethnic group, human rights defenders, and social leaders, LGBTI. D. Gender Rationale for Indicator (optional): PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Source: Accusatory Oral Criminal System(SPOA-FGN) Method of Data Collection and Construction: Derechos de Petición to FGN Reporting Frequency: Individual(s) Responsible at USAID: Individual(s) Responsible at PF: TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline value: Date of Baseline: 2016-nov 202 Life of Project Target (LOP): Fiscal Year Targets (if applicable): FY2018: FY2019: FY2020: FY2021: FY2022: 143 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV FY2023: Notes on baseline and targets: Baseline values depend on multiple variables. See results in final report and database. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Data interpretation cautions and known limitations i. Noticia criminal refers to a basic unit of analysis used as a criminal case by the FGN. In a minority of situations, it may contain more than one victim, criminal offence, offence or suspect. ii. Offenses are measured by the number of Noticias Criminales, except for intentional homicide cases, that are measured by the number of victims. iii. FGN closes cases if it considers that a crime was not committed and excludes these from the case count. iv. Counts for all crimes underestimate true victimization levels, because of insufficient reporting to authorities. For most crimes, the majority of victims do not file a complaint. And some homicides in violent localities are unknown to criminal justice authorities. We did not find national and systematic data about the level of unreported crime, but there are some crime specific studies or local anecdotal accounts that confirm these issues. v. The SPOA information system is not well fed and updated, for variables including victims’ ethnicity, gender, and LGBTI status. vi. For social leaders and human rights defenders, we use the database built by the FGN, crossed with victims in the list by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Given COVID-19 travel limitations, the UN list for 2020 has not been promptly updated. vii. Cases are classified according to the date and place of events registered in SPOA. In some exceptions, incorrect case recording can mistake these with the dates or places of the complaint. viii. Groups of crimes: Some offences include several articles of the penal code and respond to groups of crimes defined by the FGN. The articles included for each offense are specified below Offenses Articles. Ley 599 de 2000 Threats Art. 347, 188 E Constraint Art. 150, 182, 184 C Illegal recruitment Art. 162 Extortion Art. 244 ix. Rate formula: Rate by 100 thousand people = Total victims 2019* 100.000 Total municipal population DANE Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Previous Data Quality Assessment (DQA): Date of Future Data Quality Assessment (DQA): CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Other Notes (optional): Variables classification in the database: 1. TOTAL_VICTIMAS_FGN_GRUPODELITO_GENERO_AÑO 2. TASAX100MIL_GRUPODELITO_2019_GENERO 3. TOTAL_VICTIMAS_FGN_GRUPODELITO_ENFOQUEDIFERENCIAL_AÑO 4. TOTAL_PROCESOS_FGN_GRUPODELITO_AÑO THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON/BY: USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 144 ANNEX II: DATABASE Please visit this link to access the database. 145 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX III: DASHBOARD FOR SELECTED INDICATORS AND VARIABLES Please visit this link to access the dashboard of indicators and variables. INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY DASHBOARD The Inclusive Justice Activity Dashboard is a tool for an illustrative view of selected indicators and variables from the baseline. The main characteristics are: • The tool allows for data comparison among the 54 prioritized municipalities, eight departments, and eight PDET regions. • Information5 by the geographical unit. • The year 2019 is the reference year, although some indicators present information for years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. 6 The Dashboard has two main components: • An interactive board to visualize the indicators’ information by geographic region. • A database with all the variables that feed the board. The following section presents the user’s guidelines. GUIDELINES OPENING THE DASHBOARD To access the Inclusive Justice Activity Dashboard, users must enter the link below and download Annex IV. Dashboard.xlsx. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g4xqwmDgqyhiNfKqaXAcfo29VIQfMZ34/view?usp=sharing Users must interact only in the first tab of the Excel file “DashBoard OBJ.1 2 3.” 5 Detailed information about each indicator can be found in the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) 6 The Inclusive Justice Activity Dashboard presents information for 19 indicators. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 146 Exhibit 1: Dashboard SELECTING THE GEOGRAPHIC UNIT OF ANALYSIS Users should select the unit of analysis to display the indicators’ information. Exhibit 2 shows the three tables for filtering the geographic units. They can choose one of the eight PDET regions, eight departments, or 54 municipalities. For each query, the map on the left will display the selected region. For example, the map shows the department of Cauca in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2: Filtering Geographic Units. Analysis by department or PDET region will display information for every municipality in the selected region. MULTIPLE CHOICE OPTION Users may also choose the multiple-choice option to make comparisons between different regions. This alternative will display graphs for various municipalities. Users must clear every filter for each new 147 | INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV query. Exhibit 3 shows an example of a multiple-choice comparison for two municipalities in Cauca: Corinto and El Tambo. Exhibit 3: Multiple-Choice Options to Compare Regions. DISPLAY OF INDICATORS After selecting the unit of geographic analysis, users can view each indicator on the 19 graphs. Exhibit 4 shows an example for indicator 28: Rurality level for each of the two selected municipalities in Cauca. The graph on the left shows the rurality category according to the 617 law; Corinto and El Tambo are in category 6 of rurality. The graph on the right presents the rurality level according to the National Planning Department. In this case, Corinto has an intermediate level of rurality, while El Tambo is on a Dispersed rural level. Exhibit 4: Example of Indicator 28 Rurality Level. USAID.GOV INCLUSIVE JUSTICE ACTIVITY BASELINE FINAL REPORT | 148 Exhibit 5 displays a comparison for indicator 2: Clearance rates. Each graph presents the percentage of clearance rates for five crimes: intentional homicide, femicide, sexual violence (a group of offenses), domestic violence, and assault. In this case, El Tambo presents a more significant percentage of clearance rates for three crimes. None of the municipalities show homicides for the analyzed period. Exhibit 5: Comparison of Indicator 2: Clearance Rates. Exhibit 6 depicts indicator 33: Coca cultivation. This graph displays coca hectares in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, in each municipality. In the example below, El Tambo presents more significant amounts of coca cultivation for each year. Indeed, the trend has increased during the analyzed period. Exhibit 6: Indicator 33 Coca Cultivation. For further details on the presented indicators, see the final baseline report.