58 regulating the implementation of Law 975 of 2005.195 185. The representatives indicated that there were “actual and potential limitations” to the rights of the victims “imposed by the normative framework for demobilization.” They alleged, inter alia, that Decree 128 had been applied to “over 90% of the 31,689 paramilitaries who had been demobilized collectively,” many of whom will receive pardons owing to the “indifference” and “ineffectiveness of the judicial system” to “determine whether they had committed grave human rights violations or had information about such violations.” They added that, regarding “the spontaneous declarations [versiones libres] of those who have demobilized under Decree 128 (which is almost an administrative procedure), [… n]either the victims nor their legal representatives are allowed to be present when [this] spontaneous declaration is received.” They stated that the non-retroactive nature of the Constitutional Court’s judgment C-370 of 2006 “has been invoked to nullify some of the positive aspects [of the judgment]” such as the court’s declaration that, inter alia, the article that stipulates that “the time demobilized paramilitary combatants remain in a demobilization assembly area [zona de concentración], up to a total 18 months, can be taken into account as part of their sentence,” is unconstitutional and the court’s decision that conditions the constitutionality of the spontaneous declarations to the extent they are “complete and truthful.” The representatives indicated that the demobilized paramilitaries “could argue the principle of lenity in order to request […] that the version of Law 975 prior to the Constitutional Court’s ruling be applied to them.”196 Regarding the right to the truth, they maintained that “neither adequate identification nor the full confession of those who demobilize under Decree 128” is required and, in relation to Law 975, they stated that “the benefit can only be lost when the demobilized individual conceals the crime he himself has committed. In other words, he does not lose the benefit when he fails to provide information about a crime committed by others of which he has knowledge, or when he acknowledges that he has taken part in a crime, but does not provide all the information he possesses about its perpetration. The representatives added that there is no guarantee that the demobilized individual is offering “detailed information about the planning, perpetration (including names of participants and collaborators), and concealment of the crimes committed by him. Nor is there a guarantee that the demobilized individual is offering detailed information about other crimes for which he has knowledge but in which he did not participate, or detailed information on the functioning of the group to which he belonged, including its members, structure, sources of financing, and relationship with State agents.” They stated that Law 975 “does not establish that the representatives of the victims may address questions directly to those who are demobilizing.” In addition, they indicated that it is an unacceptable restriction to the victims’ right to justice that the Justice and Peace Law establishes, “such an inadequate maximum penalty” that “significantly restricts the judge’s reasoned assessment of the appropriate penalty.” They also stated that the way in which the Justice and Peace Law regulates accumulated penalties “is a concealed amnesty or pardon of the penalty.” They added that Decree 128 “does not allocate any obligation to make reparation to its beneficiaries or establish a mechanism by which the victims can seek redress”, and that Law 975 establishes the State’s “subsidiary responsibility” to provide redress but “does not establish mechanisms for the reparation of damages caused by the State.” Moreover, they stated that, “[i]n cases in which paramilitaries and State agents are 195 Cf. Decree 2898 of August 29, 2006, regulating Law 975 of 2005; Decree 3391 of September 29, 2006, regulating the implementation of Law 975 of 2005; Decree 4417 of December 7, 2006, modifying Decree 2898 of 2006; Decree 315 of February 7, 2007, regulating the intervention of victims during the investigative stage of the Justice and Peace proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Law 975 of 2005 (record of the merits, possible reparations and costs, volume V, pages 1847-1849). 196 The representatives added that the Government has used Decree 3391 of September 29, 2006, “to reintroduce provisions that had been declared unconstitutional, by [invoking] the non-retroactivity of judgment C370.”