57 prohibition, according to the stage of the proceedings […].” Furthermore, Article 21 of this decree excluded from the enjoyment of these benefits “[t]hose that are being tried or have been convicted for crimes which, pursuant to the Constitution, the law, or the international treaties signed and ratified by Colombia, are not subject to this type of benefit.190 182. Law 975 of 2005 applies to demobilized individuals who “have been or could be charged, accused or convicted” of those crimes that are excluded from the juridical benefits established in Acts 418 of 1997, 782 of 2002 and Decree 128.191 Article 3 of Law 975 establishes the benefit of “alternative” punishment which “consists in the suspension of the punishment ordered in the respective judgment, and replacing it with an alternative punishment,” of 5 to 8 years, “which is granted on the basis of the beneficiary’s contribution to national peace, collaboration with justice, reparation to the victims, and satisfactory reinsertion in society.” This benefit is granted pursuant to the “eligibility requirements” established in Articles 10 and 11 of Law 975. 183. In its judgment of May 18, 2006, the Colombian Constitutional Court [Corte Constitucional de Colombia] ruled upon suits which alleged that Law 975 was unconstitutional, and declared that most of the articles of the Law were constitutional, ruled some articles unconstitutional, and conditioned the constitutionality of others.192 In this judgment, the Constitutional Court established, inter alia, that Law 975 is an ordinary law regulating criminal proceedings and cannot be compared to a law granting amnesty or pardon because it does not prevent ongoing criminal prosecutions from continuing and it does not eliminate penalties; rather, it grants juridical benefits in order achieve peace. That court also established that the benefit of an alternative punishment was constitutional, because it did not affect disproportionately the rights of the victims to truth, justice, reparation and non-repetition, which it found were also protected by Law 975. 184. The Constitutional Court emphasized that Law 975 of 2005 is a law relating to transitional justice193 and examined the different arguments against this law in light of the rights to truth, justice, reparation and non-repetition from the perspective of international human rights law and Colombian constitutional law. The Constitutional Court examined, inter alia, the time period within which the prosecutor is required to conduct the investigation, the requirements for acquiring the juridical benefits established in the Law and the grounds for losing these benefits, the proportionality of the alternative punishment, the means and mechanisms of reparation, and the participation of the victims in the judicial proceedings. The Constitutional Court decided “not to apply [its] judgment retroactively […].”194 Following the Constitutional Court’s judgment, the Government issued decrees 190 Cf. Decree 128 was issued on January 22, 2003, and “regulates the implementation of Law 418 of 1997, extended and modified by Law 548 of 1999 and Law 782 of 2002 concerning reinsertion into civil society” (record of evidences to the State’s written closing arguments, volume II, evidence 10A, pages 7925 to 7932). 191 Cf. Justice and Peace Law [Ley de Justicia y Paz], Article 10 (record of evidences to the final written arguments submitted by the State, volume I, evidence 1A, page 7703); and expert opinion provided by Rodolfo Arango Rivadeneira at the pubic hearing held on January 31 and February 1, 2007. 192 Cf. judgment C-370 delivered by the Colombian Constitutional Court on May 18, 2006 (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume III, evidence 46, pages 6004 to 6007). 193 Cf. judgment C-370 delivered by the Colombian Constitutional Court on May 18, 2006 (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume III, evidence 46, pages 5869 to 5871, and 5916 to 5921). 194 Cf. judgment C-370 delivered by the Colombian Constitutional Court on May 18, 2006, findings 4(2) and 5 (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume III, evidence 46, page 6003).