Glifosato, campesinos y jueces: la timidez de las altas cortes en la reparación de los daños ocasionados por la política de fumigaciones áreas

The public policy for the eradication of illicit crops in Colombia was developed for more than 20 years through a program that aimed to reduce illicit crops through aerial spraying of herbicides. The program was based on the hypothesis that there was a correlation between crops for illicit use and the armed conflict. This article focuses on the role of judges in repairing damages caused by such sprayings under the thesis that the courts were strongly influenced by the program’s counterinsurgency approach, and this explains the denial of the right to compensation for damages caused by the sprayings. Furthermore, the change in judicial precedent in which the rights of the communities affected by fumigations were prioritized was not due to a change in legislation or a conversion of the judges into guarantors but rather to an explicit change in the public policy approach.