ARMED FORCES AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Before delving into the relationship between the military and law, it is crucial to understand the historical context of a struggle that has spanned millennia and remains relevant even in the age of space exploration. Throughout history, humankind has sought its place in society, especially in its relationship with state power. This process has been complex, as governments tend to favor submission, especially those led by authoritarian figures or those that adopt monarchical forms inclined toward despotism. Victories in this area are significant and, on many occasions, have not emerged from negotiation or dialogue, but from collective protest, resistance, or, in its most extreme form, violent revolution. The struggle for freedom and justice has been a common thread in confrontations, both individual and collective, that, whether conscious of their objectives or not, have sought the full enjoyment of these rights throughout the centuries. In the Western context, the darkness of the Middle Ages is beginning to give way to the first, still faint, glimmerings of individual rights. In earlier times, the writings of Greek philosophers and Judeo-Christian ethics recognized the dignity of the individual and its relevance to diverse forms of government. Rebellions such as Spartacus's during the Roman Empire demonstrate the explosion of accumulated tensions, which erupt when frustration reaches its peak, or when a leader rises to ignite the flame of rebellion. In England, the Magna Carta of 1215 established limitations on the king's absolute power over his subjects. The nobles, rising up against John Lackland, imposed rules that constituted a political philosophy on the relationship between rulers and ruled. However, this agreement was primarily between the nobility and the monarch, and its impact on the people was limited. Still, it represents the first of three historic milestones in the slow march toward democracy in its contemporary form: the Petition of Right of 1628 and the Code of Rights of 1689.

Thus, when the Mayflower travelers arrived in New England, in what is now Massachusetts, they brought with them profound concepts of law and liberty, which the vast horizons of the New World extended and strengthened. The liberation of the Thirteen Colonies, symbolized by the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the establishment of the Code of Rights that same year, represents the establishment of the first modern democracy. The French Revolution, with its outbreak of enormous magnitude for its time, established the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in its Constituent Assembly. Although the tide of Jacobin violence had not yet invaded France, its proclamation of liberty, equality, and fraternity provided the struggle against the monarchy with such powerful energy that it began a new era in the relationship between power and community. Despite the impediments that the Spanish Crown attempted to interpose between revolutionary France and its overseas territories, the Rights and their proclamation managed to cross the ocean. In Santafé del Nuevo Reino de Granada, Antonio Nariño was responsible for secretly printing and disseminating these ideals among his contemporaries. This extremely dangerous action, given the opacity of the colonial era, brought him years of imprisonment and persecution, but it imprinted the idea of ​​the value of the individual in the public consciousness of what would later become Colombia, a concept that would endure throughout its democratic history.

In Spain, the recognition of individual rights progressed more slowly and complicatedly. When Charles V heard the surprising statement from the Castilian knights, who called themselves comuneros, "each one of us, who has as much value as you, but together we are worth much more than you...", he was astonished. He was forced to give in. However, monarchical absolutism remained in place until the turmoil generated by the confinement of the monarchs in Bayonne and the subsequent Napoleonic intervention in the peninsula led to the creation of the Constitution of Cadiz in 1812 and the independence of the overseas colonies. Ferdinand VII ignored the Constitution upon his return to the throne and revoked any attempt made during his absence to diminish his absolutism. The situation in the American colonies was considered a challenge and a betrayal, and the most effective way to suppress it was through the use of force. A formidable peacekeeping expedition crossed the Atlantic, and the northern region of South America suffered the Night of Terror. Nevertheless, emancipation had become irreversible, and the new republics began their turbulent path toward democracy.

In this context, what represented a process for the Anglo-Saxons represents a traumatic change for Ibero-Americans that will require considerable time to assimilate. It is complex to abruptly transition from Bourbon authoritarianism and its despotic form of governance to republics emerging from armed conflicts, where victorious leaders assume power. Militarization, like the monarchy, is inherently authoritarian. Discipline becomes the fundamental basis of its functioning. It tolerates no opposition, and its severity extends to the people its generals administer in a context where war has prevented the formation of a political class. The new nations are in a search for self-knowledge. Their political suffering manifests itself in a frantic search for identity. The brief intervals of democratic exercise are simply pauses in the cycle of returning to dictatorships, whether by the military or by civilian leaders who rely on military force. In this contemporary pendulum movement, citizens' rights are formalized in successive Constitutions, although they are ignored in the everyday life marked by autocratic regimes. This situation is presented as a common heritage that, with few exceptions, affects Ibero-America. Democracy is a longing. Dictatorship is the prevailing situation. In this stark contrast, freedoms are truncated and rights are ignored, while the Indo-American people of the middle and lower classes survive under the same yoke of colonial times.

The United Nations emerged from the devastation of World War II as a symbol of hope in one of the most turbulent periods in history. On December 10, 1948, this organization issued a declaration that consolidated the fundamental contributions of England, France, and the United States in support of human rights. This document represented the culmination of a long process aimed at establishing principles on the rights and freedoms inherent to human beings, committing the signatory countries to respect and guarantee these rights within their borders.

Despite this significant progress, there remains a difficult road ahead to uphold these rights in situations of internal or external conflict, which frequently lead to armed conflicts between nations or violent partisan confrontations within a single country. Any scenario of armed conflict seriously jeopardizes respect for human rights. When disputes cannot be resolved peacefully and violence becomes inevitable, they often escalate over time, and mutual accusations of human rights violations are frequently used as a pretext to justify further abuses.

However, the universal recognition of human rights constitutes a key advance. It provides a normative framework over which the international community can exercise oversight through the body that establishes them, in addition to holding nations accountable to the rest of the world and exposing themselves to both material and moral sanctions.

In this context, a crucial responsibility arises for military institutions regarding human rights. These armed forces represent the coercive power that the State can employ, whether in the execution of its international policy or in the face of internal unrest. Although they bear the arms of their nation, they must understand that their use must be governed by universal ethical principles that protect the non-combatant civilian population, as well as enemy military personnel, whether wounded, prisoners, or deserters. Adherence to these values ​​is essential to ensure that the exercise of military power remains within the limits dictated by universal human rights.

International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights have origins deeply marked by the horrors of war. The Battle of Solferino, fought on June 24, 1859, during the war between Austria and France for the possession of Sardinia, left a terrifying toll: more than 35,000 dead and twice as many wounded. This event deeply impacted the Swiss philanthropist Henri Dunant, who witnessed firsthand the suffering of those unable to receive medical care, especially those who had fallen in enemy territory and were left unprotected by military health services. Motivated by the need to alleviate these ailments, Dunant promoted the first Geneva Conference in 1863, considered the starting point of International Humanitarian Law. This legal framework also significantly influenced the modern development of Human Rights.

Both concepts originate in the military sphere and have as their primary objective to mitigate the suffering of both civilian populations caught in armed conflict and wounded or captured combatants. In this effort to humanize warfare, the International Red Cross emerged as an organization charged with ensuring compliance with the most basic standards in the midst of barbarism, even as technological advances facilitated increasingly devastating forms of mass destruction. The confrontation between the humanization of conflict and the growing destructive capacity intensified with the First World War. The use of chemical weapons, such as asphyxiating gases, marked a turning point by demonstrating the terrible impact these technologies could have on the human body.

During this first global conflict, new tools of war such as aircraft and tanks also emerged. Although their use was still limited, they revealed a destructive potential that foreshadowed dark times. However, it was the Second World War that brought unprecedented devastation. Tactics such as Blitzkrieg razed entire cities, and non-combatant civilians suffered as much as, or even more than, the soldiers on the front lines. The destruction knew no bounds, as did the systematic violations of human rights against ethnic minorities and occupied populations. The concentration camps became a terrifying testament to the extent of human evil, exposing torture, massacres, and genocides motivated by both ethnic and imperialist ambitions, where defeat meant complete misfortune before the oppressor for the vanquished.

Following the end of such a monumental tragedy, a renewed effort emerged to reestablish the foundations of humanitarian law. The creation of the United Nations represented a significant advance in this regard, promoting international regulation in the face of the horrors experienced. However, these advances have been largely overshadowed by the constant threat posed by weapons of extreme destructive power and the spread of terrorism as a tool of political and military intimidation. Even so, International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights remain fundamental pillars in the collective aspiration toward a more just and humane world.

The Second World War brought with it a significant transformation in the methods of combat, giving unprecedented prominence to unconventional forms of warfare. Guerrilla warfare, which had historically been an auxiliary resource used by armies and a temporary tactic to counter the adversary's superiority through dispersed and surprise operations, acquired a new strategic dimension within favorable geographical conditions and with the support of the civilian population. Its effectiveness was demonstrated in various scenarios, such as the Russian steppes, the Yugoslav mountains, and the cities and rural areas of France during the Allied invasion of 1944. However, from that moment on, it began to be permeated by defined political objectives.

The post-World War II geopolitical landscape, marked by the ideological confrontation between East and West, fostered new conflict dynamics within the framework of the Cold War. In this context, guerrilla warfare and large-scale terrorism emerged as key elements, while conventional warfare was relegated primarily to localized conflicts between secondary powers. These wars were characterized by their mobility, rapidity, and limited duration, limited by the fear of the use of nuclear weapons.

In contrast to these localized wars, the processes of independence and decolonization in Asia and Africa opened a new front on which irregular tactics proved decisive. These processes gradually eroded Europe's most powerful and best-equipped armies, revealing the limits of colonial forces in the face of protracted strategies based on both military and psychological attrition. These massive and intensified forms of irregular warfare led to significant human rights violations, often deliberate. Acts of cruelty, barbarism, and violations of international law became recurring tools in the conflicts, affecting both sides with equal intensity. Clandestine terrorism employed by the insurgents was met with reprisals marked by equivalent levels of violence. This continuous cycle of attacks and counterattacks generated an escalating war that only found resolution with the political or military outcome of the conflict.

In Latin America, ideological conflicts took the form of political subversion and revolutionary war. The superpowers involved saw countries immersed in these types of internal conflicts as an opportunity to expand their respective spheres of influence. On the one hand, expansionist zeal drove the overthrow of governments with a view to establishing strategic control; on the other, the powers sought to sustain friendly regimes to prevent those territories from falling under the control of their adversary. As in all internal conflicts, these ideological confrontations reached high levels of violence. Terrorism was used as a ruthless means to inflict damage on the established regime, while governments resorted to torture as a method to obtain information or deter insurgents. Both sides accused each other of violating human rights.

These new forms of conflict generated indescribable suffering for both combatants and the civilian population, who were trapped in an environment marked by enforced disappearances, torture, denial of justice, and punishments inflicted without respect for legal guarantees. Although various non-governmental organizations emerged with the aim of mitigating these abuses outside the geopolitical conflict, their efforts were limited: they failed to gain access to the insurgent sphere, while governments that questioned them characterized them as biased toward the subversive cause. Ultimately, this type of confrontation poses a continuing challenge to the preservation of human rights and demands structural responses from international and national institutions committed to their protection.

International efforts to eradicate human rights violations have led to a distortion of the legitimate objectives underlying this important work. An excessive focus is placed on accusations without thorough verification of their authenticity. Subversive groups take advantage of global concern to carry out actions that are not always just against the governments involved and the armed forces that support them. The consequences of this situation are twofold: on the one hand, organizations defending human rights have seen their credibility undermined in the nations that have been the subject of these allegations. On the other hand, police forces and armies facing accusations of human rights violations argue that the institutions that speak out against them are biased. This dual effect ultimately harms the noble and generally well-intentioned cause, as the resulting confusion prevents the truth from being identified. Added to this is the fact that some of these non-governmental organizations are mere fronts, part of an international network supporting subversion.

The ideological revolution has generated a specific terminology that has consolidated over time. A dirty war is considered to be one carried out by any state in defense against terrorist attacks, kidnappings, blackmail, and intimidation. The assassination of a government official is classified as an execution, regardless of the absence of the death penalty in the legal framework of the country in question, while the death of a guerrilla in combat is classified as murder. The kidnapping and deprivation of liberty of a person for political or economic purposes, such as extracting a ransom, are considered a right, and the place where they are held captive is called the people's prison; in contrast, state prisons are described as sinister facilities for repression, torture, and murder. This distorted perspective, which sometimes exaggerates and sometimes reflects reality, and which frequently presents abuses unilaterally by both sides, increases violence in the conflict, confuses all involved, and ultimately negatively impacts the genuine protection of human rights.

The persistent presence of dictatorships in Latin America has led to insurgency as a means of resistance and the pursuit of the overthrow of arbitrary regimes in pursuit of democratic ideals. These latter movements only began to consolidate in the 1980s, allowing a democratic consciousness to emerge in several societies where dictatorship, with its historical roots, had been perceived almost as an intrinsic element of national life. In these authoritarian contexts, the exercise of absolute power created an environment where human rights violations were normalized as part of the system. The first casualty was often freedom of expression: once critical voices were silenced through censorship, systematic abuse was fostered without the possibility of challenge due to the lack of means to do so. In this context, the figure of the authoritarian leader, backed by a police apparatus that equated dissent with political crime, became the core of a system that restricted fundamental freedoms and rights. This dynamic was reinforced by armed and police forces whose operational structure favored repressive practices.

With the democratic advance and the gradual end of the ideological guerrilla uprisings that had marked much of the region since the 1950s—a phenomenon intensified by the influence of the Cuban revolutionary model that sought to spread throughout Latin America—a new dimension emerged for human rights. Societies that managed to free themselves from dictatorial rule began to demand guarantees that such violations would not be repeated, a fact reflected in democratic constitutions that incorporated human rights, often based verbatim on the United Nations Universal Declaration. However, at the same time, remnant insurgent movements found in human rights discourse an effective tool to discredit democratic governments and their military and police institutions.

Democracy, by its nature, implies respect for the individual and adherence to legal principles as the foundations of power. However, this respect faces challenges, especially where armed movements persist. Although born from past ideological struggles, they lost their justification after the fall of communist regimes and the failure of the political-economic model that sustained them. These dynamics have led to protracted conflicts with complex and conflicting consequences: from the repeated violation of human rights to an extreme politicization of the issue, used as a weapon to undermine government legitimacy while also concealing the abuses committed by armed groups.

In this context, real violations are built on top of fictitious ones that seek to delegitimize governments. These smear campaigns not only resort to media amplification and internationalization of the conflict, but also find echo in non-governmental organizations whose political impact tends to limit—under pressure—international economic cooperation or the supply of military equipment to the accused countries. This can even lead to international economic sanctions. Official armed groups are often the most affected by these initiatives. In situations of high tension and armed conflict, it is common for certain low-ranking officials to act cruelly or arbitrarily, fueling accusations that are amplified by organizations linked to or associated with insurgent forces. These accusations combine verifiable facts with exaggerations or manipulations to reinforce condemnatory narratives.

Governments subjected to this accumulation of internal and international pressure find it difficult to restore their image, despite significant efforts to purify repressive practices and guarantee respect for human dignity under all circumstances. Among other difficulties, the complexity of distinguishing which non-governmental organizations act with genuine ethics and which, intentionally or not, contribute to disinformation campaigns by repeating unfounded accusations stands out. This framework perpetuates the challenge of balancing the legitimate monopoly of state force with unrestricted respect for human rights in contexts marked by persistent conflict.

In most Ibero-American countries, the armed forces and police have historically lacked experience operating within democratic contexts. The transition from authoritarian and omnipotent dictatorships to republican systems occurred abruptly, without adequate time or favorable conditions to undertake effective transformation or "democratization" processes. This democratization entails a systematic effort to instill in these institutions a new orientation in their relationship with the rule of law, as well as in the face of the residual insurgencies present in many territories.

The most suitable path for progress toward full respect for human rights by police and military agencies is found within the democratic regime itself. This political system, founded on the practice of freedom and respect for the inherent dignity of every person, establishes that the armed forces are subordinate to civilian authority, operating within a legal system based on the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Modern constitutions, particularly those drafted in nations that have experienced periods of democratic interruption, establish human rights as an essential element of their legal architecture. Thus, by swearing allegiance to the Constitutional Charter, public forces assume the inescapable commitment to guarantee the full exercise of rights and freedoms for all members of society.

It is, therefore, vital that both the military and police forces internalize the democratic philosophy and act accordingly in their tasks of protecting the rule of law. Only in this way can a nation and its security institutions achieve international recognition and respect. To incorporate this democratic value into the ethos of the armed forces, it is essential to conceive it beyond a mere political structure of the State; it must be promoted as a true philosophy and way of life. However, this understanding cannot be limited exclusively to the military; it must also extend to citizens. The widespread adoption of democratic principles contributes to strengthening social coexistence and establishing dynamics based on mutual respect. Such an understanding reduces the need for repressive measures, directing them exclusively toward antisocial and criminal behavior that exceeds established legal limits.

When this broad interpretation of the democratic system is consolidated within the armed forces, it can be said with high probability that there will be no violations of human dignity or infringements of the fundamental rights that the State is obligated to safeguard. From this perspective, democracy could be understood as the fruit of a sustained consensus among citizens' will to coexist within a framework of freedom that respects the law. This ethical model of coexistence assumes guiding principles such as social harmony and the rule of law, oriented toward achieving the common good as the primary objective of any government that aspires to be founded on a solid foundation of public morality.

In the context of armed conflicts and other manifestations of internal conflict, military and police forces have an ethical and institutional imperative to guarantee the comprehensive protection of human rights, avoiding any type of violation. In a democracy, this principle constitutes not only an essential reference but also a standard of conduct to which these institutions must rigorously adhere. Democratic legitimacy demands that its code of ethics be irrefutably followed by the military and police, ensuring that no authority seeks to justify breaking the law under the pretext of defending it or preserving its validity.

In this sense, resorting to morally questionable procedures to confront violent rebellions or challenges to public order would demonstrate that democracy is not fulfilling its primary function of promoting the common good. Such a circumstance would also reveal the existence of internal tensions that generate rejection within the system itself and lack civilized channels for their expression. However, this approach does not imply weakness in the face of threats to the legal framework. Rather, to preserve the rule of law, it is crucial to implement regulations that empower law enforcement to contain, within reasonable limits and without unnecessary trauma, the excessive actions of subversive or insurgent groups that could endanger social peace.

It is imperative to emphasize that the law cannot be ignored or violated; this is precisely the purpose of establishing instruments such as states of emergency in various democratic contexts or specific legal instruments such as martial law or a state of siege in other political systems. These mechanisms seek to guarantee controlled and balanced responses to severe disruptions in the normal functioning of a society, whether due to criminal acts, subversive or revolutionary movements, or disturbances of any other kind. These measures must be aimed at restoring order without resorting to arbitrary actions, abuse of power, or the excessive use of violence in any form.

A duly constituted public force must inspire respect and authority through its mere presence in episodes of public order disturbances. Actions deployed to maintain or restore peace must be characterized by a firmness based on a moral hierarchy and a serenity that guarantees balance and moderation during crowd control operations or any type of disturbance.

However, it can be expected that this legitimacy and capacity for action will be challenged by factors such as ideological fanaticism, the exacerbation of political passions, the irresponsible leadership of strongmen, or the concerted strategies of agitators skilled in manipulating social conflicts to achieve disruptive or even insurrectional objectives. In this scenario, it is essential that military commanders and police chiefs act with prudence and self-restraint. Any excess in their procedures would irreversibly damage both the institutional prestige of the armed forces and the good name of these bodies; moreover, it could undermine the moral integrity of the democratic government they seek to protect and defend.

In countries where ideological insurgencies did not end after the fall of political systems that promoted violence as a means of gaining power, internal uprisings capable of threatening state stability often have diverse motivations. These may stem from social and economic factors, political struggles for power, or even the regime's obvious inability to address situations of exclusion, deprivation, or urgent needs. When a challenge of this magnitude cannot be contained by public force either in its initial outbreak or in its early stages—especially if the causes fueling the discontent persist—there is a high risk that the conflict will evolve into a civil war. In such a scenario, both parties are obliged to respect international humanitarian law and the rules governing armed conflict, although this is rarely easy. Internal conflicts tend to be bloodier than international ones, and Europe, despite its past replete with civilizational advances, offers recent examples that confirm this. The case of Yugoslavia is an eloquent and heartbreaking testimony to this reality.

The dynamics of internal conflicts marked by protracted guerrilla and terrorist actions are different. In these conflicts, the confrontation takes place between regular state forces and an insurgency characterized by operating in a fluid, dispersed, and clandestine manner, limited only by the objectives it seeks to achieve through its violence. This type of conflict exhibits a sharp asymmetry: while insurgencies employ methods condemned by both International Humanitarian Law and the international community—which often proves ineffective in countering them due to their clandestinity and the impossibility of negotiating with illegitimate leaders—any excess on the part of the state tends to be severely questioned or even distorted for propaganda purposes by the rebels. This difference places the state under constant, often unfair, scrutiny.

Therefore, when the use of force becomes necessary, it must be governed by strict and unwavering ethics. What distinguishes a democratic state from those who seek to subvert it lies precisely in the moral plane. There is no room for exceptions. The application of the law must be based on principles that transcend critical moments, even when law enforcement faces extreme acts of barbarism. Under no circumstances should a response be made by resorting to the same inhumane tactics, as doing so undermines the legitimate character of the state. Giving in to the temptation of retaliation or revenge not only hardens and prolongs the conflict, but also provides insurgencies with an argument to justify their struggle. Thus, they portray the state as a brutal entity that can only be maintained through violence—and not through reason—further eroding its legitimacy in the eyes of society and the international community.

The often successful effort to discredit state armed forces, promoted by revolutionary organizations, constantly seeks to point to them as responsible for human rights violations. These types of accusations find immediate echo among non-governmental organizations and allied governments, which often accept without question the supposed legitimacy and objectivity of these allegations. However, the polarization resulting from these confrontations only serves to weaken the cause of human rights. Insurgencies provoke state forces and transform any incident, no matter how trivial, into evidence of what they call acts of institutional brutality. The general strategy underlying these actions includes:

1. Conducting intense disinformation campaigns targeting state military and police institutions, with the aim of persuading both domestic public opinion and international organizations of the existence of systematic and massive human rights violations.

2. Internationalizing isolated episodes of violations to give them a disproportionate scope.

When real instances of government violations of human rights are identified, whether due to the state's inability to exercise control over public forces or due to permissive behavior under the premise that such practices are necessary for its defense, campaigns are launched to discredit the government in the eyes of the international community. This can lead to political sanctions, arms embargoes, and loss of diplomatic prestige. Once a state acquires a negative reputation in this area, it is extremely difficult to reverse, even if the abusive actions diminish or are eliminated. The accusations persist, either by amplifying minor incidents or promoting defamations without verifiable evidence.

The central purpose of this strategic offensive is to inflict as much damage as possible on the state, with particular emphasis on discrediting its armed forces, perceived as the main obstacle to revolutionary objectives. These circumstances profoundly affect morale within military and police institutions, especially given the unilateral approach frequently adopted by international organizations. This generates attitudes of hypersensitivity and rejection toward any external intervention, even when it is intended to be conciliatory, as it is perceived as biased and hostile. This consolidates a state of polarization that gives rise to irreconcilable positions that end up being equally detrimental to the defense of human rights.

From the insurrectionist perspective, any means are valid in the struggle to achieve their objectives, which is part of their doctrine of combining multiple forms of struggle. For their part, government forces react using methods that are equally questionable from an ethical standpoint; however, these actions are even more reprehensible given that they come from the State, whose legitimacy requires upholding unwavering ethical and legal principles. Faced with the brutal methods employed by the insurgents, some state entities justify retaliation in circumstances where the moral and legal superiority of the State should prevail over those seeking to overthrow it.

This polarizing cycle inevitably leads to a progressive worsening of abuses on both sides. The escalating reprisals degenerate into increasingly atrocious and inhumane acts, resulting in a complete collapse of respect for human rights. In this context, the firm and upright actions of a visionary statesman and a military commander committed to ethical principles could halt such a destructive spiral. Beyond malicious criticism from misinformed or manipulated entities, as well as the ongoing violations perpetrated by subversive actors, the primary duty of civilian authorities and their armed institutions in a democracy must be to guarantee the ultimate protection of inalienable human rights. By consistently upholding this uncompromising ethical conduct, the government that upholds these fundamental principles will eventually achieve just recognition.

When revolutionary aggression reaches a point where the use of force is inevitable, it is crucial to define a clear state policy and structure an appropriate military strategy to manage it effectively. Many governments fail because they fail to understand the conflict in all its complexity. Ideological movements, even when ideology is merely a pretext for other objectives, increase their chances of success due to the failures of the government and its armed forces in addressing the problem. It is common for a state, when faced with an emerging guerrilla movement, to perceive only the armed challenge, without unraveling the deeper reasons behind the appearance of force. This leads to treating the phenomenon as if the guerrilla movement were the cause rather than the consequence of more complex and profound factors.

The simplistic conception of responding to violence with superior force leads to initially delegating the matter to the police and, later, to the military when it becomes evident that police capacity is insufficient to handle the problem. However, guerrillas would not thrive without an enabling environment, generally linked to socioeconomic conditions and sometimes reinforced by political, religious, or ethnic factors. Responding exclusively with force limits the state's overall capacity to address a situation that requires a comprehensive response, where the military is only part of the approach and not even the most decisive. Force, when used without structural solutions to multifaceted problems, is not only insufficient but can be counterproductive.

In this comprehensive approach, ensuring respect for human rights takes on a central role. This standard should not be ceded to subversive forces through actions that can be used to accuse the regime of violations, which ultimately become a burden that erodes its legitimacy. Maintaining a firm adherence to the principles of legitimacy strengthens the state against the claims and propaganda strategies of insurgent actors.

For the guerrilla to remain active and expand, it needs the support of the civilian population. This premise is accurately illustrated in Mao Tse-tung's aphorism: the population is to the guerrilla what water is to fish. This civilian support allows it to swell its ranks, care for and heal the wounded, warn of the approaching regular army, meet logistical needs, act as espionage and courier networks, and even participate in brief combat actions before returning to a semblance of everyday life. In essence, revolutionary war focuses on conquering the human mind; whoever manages to capture and use this will have an advantage in the conflict.

Under this approach, human rights take on a fundamental role. The tensions generated by a prolonged war, coupled with disproportionate responses to terrorist acts, can lead some military commanders to replicate the brutal tactics of their adversaries. This may include applying methods that defy basic human rights principles to discourage civilian support for the insurgency, a decision that would be deeply counterproductive. Even legal measures such as criminal prosecution for complicity in political crimes associated with the rebellion can have an adverse impact if not handled carefully. Worse still, resorting to abuses against the civilian population exacerbates alienation and increases discontent.

Inhabitants of rural areas under guerrilla influence are often in a state of defenselessness and susceptible to coercion or persuasion by insurgents, especially in areas where there is no significant government presence. In these cases, loyalty to an absent state cannot be demanded. It is more effective to interpret this insurgency as a manifestation of discontent stemming from that absence and to work to build ties with the inhabitants rather than imposing sanctions or resorting to force.

At the same time, the insurgency itself denies the legitimacy of the state it is fighting and incites the population under its influence to do the same. Justice applied arbitrarily or to punish actions that are not truly criminal only reinforces this narrative. Furthermore, human rights violations in this context generate multiple negative effects:

- Erosion of the state's credibility among the civilian population, who find in these errors additional reasons to challenge the government.

- Greater cohesion between the population and the guerrillas, perceived as a defensive army against state forces that are seen as repressive.

- Deterioration of the government's international image, accompanied by an increase in moral, logistical, and even armed support for the insurgents.

- Increased international pressure in defense of human rights and individual freedoms.

- Deepening of the conflict and an increase in the atrocities inherent in this type of war.

Adopting a humanitarian, fair, and balanced approach by state forces is more advantageous in countering the insurgency than resorting to its violent methods. At the same time, any action must be accompanied by social justice. If an entire region decides to take up arms, before condemning such an act, it is imperative to analyze the underlying causes in order to find a solution. Rebellions do not arise without reason; something has generated the conditions that lead communities to choose the uncertain path of armed struggle.

However, this logical perspective seems to be unknown or ignored in the development of internal conflicts. The instinctive reaction always tends to be the use of force against force. This erroneous approach often ends up intensifying the conflict and spreading it to other communities facing similar circumstances of marginalization and abandonment. As a result, solutions become much more complicated.

An escalation of the conflict necessarily requires more resources directed toward strengthening armies and police forces. This drains essential budgets that should be allocated to socioeconomic development. This creates a vicious cycle where social deprivation fuels insurgency, but the resources to combat it prevent fundamental needs from being addressed. This perpetuates discontent and ensures the conditions for rebellion to flourish.

By emphasizing that the most important thing in the face of an armed insurrection is to understand its causes and that a state policy must be established to confront it, it is established that the military strategy to counter insurgent action is, in essence, the implementation of said policy in conflict scenarios. It is imperative that military leadership act with the utmost determination in implementing the planned strategy with regard to human rights, just as in other initiatives. Establishing control, inspection, surveillance, and the constant demand for adherence to ethical standards that respect personal dignity and integrity are essential to prevent the lower levels of the military hierarchy from deviating toward revenge in the face of barbarism or knee-jerk responses to the threat of terrorism. Any violation of these established standards must be punished with the utmost severity, remembering that a single violation without consequences can spread the perception of systematic abuses, fostering an image of law enforcement as a repressive, violent group that violates human rights. For this mission to be carried out effectively, it is critical that the military leadership be convinced of the importance of protecting human rights, both for ethical reasons and for the practical objective of depriving the opponent of the ability to discredit law enforcement, while seeking to engage the civilian population as an ally rather than an adversary.

Military training in human rights is of fundamental importance, especially in contexts marked by internal conflicts and practices contrary to human dignity. Throughout history, various armed and police forces have operated under a repressive approach, often justifying arbitrary acts in the name of defending regimes perceived as legitimate or genuinely legitimate. However, this attitude must be profoundly transformed, particularly in contexts where practices that violate people's fundamental rights have become normalized. This change requires a clear and firm understanding that any action that disregards human dignity violates both the Constitution and the laws that these institutions are called to protect and guarantee.

To bring about this change, it is essential to foster an approach focused on respect for human rights, both among senior commanders and among troops. Leaders are especially key, given that their conduct and directives shape the actions of those under their authority. This commitment to human rights must be instilled from the primary training of public officials, as is the case with academies for military and police cadets. This principle must subsequently be reinforced through ongoing training programs and internships carried out in active service. A comprehensive approach to teaching human rights requires considering three fundamental dimensions:

1. **Moral Aspect**: The inherent dignity of every person is inviolable. Even individuals who have committed serious crimes have rights that must be respected. Any violation against them not only undermines their humanity but also places the perpetrators in a position of illegality.

2. **Legal-Political Aspect**: The work of public forces is based on the protection of the established legal framework, which is contained primarily in the national Constitution. The violation of human rights constitutes a direct violation of the constitutional mandate, transforming it into punishable conduct that contradicts the democratic and legal principles that these forces have the duty to safeguard.

3. **Practical aspect in internal conflicts**: Victories in internal confrontations cannot be achieved without the essential support of the civilian population. The violation of human rights, especially when directed against civilian sectors perceived as allies or accomplices of insurgent groups, undermines this essential relationship and pushes affected communities toward positions opposed to the State, facilitating the advance of subversive movements.

Historical evidence corroborates the effectiveness of these assertions. In contexts where a humanitarian and respectful approach toward the civilian population has been employed, strong ties have been established that have allowed them to gain their trust and collaboration, thus completely eradicating the insurgent threat. In contrast, strategies based on arbitrary actions, abuses, or prohibited coercive methods have generated counterproductive results, widening conflicts to the point of making them practically insoluble.

Therefore, promoting respect for human rights is not only an inherent ethical and legal obligation of the armed forces and police, but also an indispensable practical strategy for achieving lasting peace and strengthening the social fabric in situations of internal conflict.

There is no element more convincing to military subordinates than authority exercised through exemplary conduct. A unit of forces deployed to recover an area affected by guerrilla activity must find in its leader a role model in the management of the civilian population, as well as those suspected of having ties to the guerrillas or captured enemies. Regarding the wounded and prisoners, humanitarian intervention is required, which the military commander must either directly direct or supervise when his subordinate personnel carry out these actions, ensuring that his command team and troops follow the same operational standard. Leadership must be demonstrated persuasively and convincingly when addressing complex and sensitive issues. Officers and non-commissioned officers who have been involved for an extended period in internal security operations, dealing with problematic or openly rebellious communities, often tend to become impatient, which can lead to the violation of the rights of the opponent or mere suspects, especially if the enemy adopts brutal tactics to force citizens' collaboration with its cause.