During the drafting and processing, the bill was criticized by human rights groups and the United Nations, among others. Critics felt that might be too generous in offering sentences 5–8 years for serious crimes, applicable to offenses that demobilized them confess or that the State can prove later. It has also been criticized at first was relatively limited time period for investigations or processes that help generate betrayal evidential material. The
United Nations, through its spokesman Michael Fruhling, have criticized the conduct of a full confession was not a requirement of the process, but in principle it requires rather a kind of free version on the criminal activities of demobilized, arguing that That would be an obstacle to the full decommissioning of paramilitary and reparations for victims. The Colombian government and the defenders of the Justice and Peace Law argued that it was necessary to find a balance between the requirements of justice and peace, which implies the acceptance of certain impunity implied in a negotiation process. It was also argued that it was the first law and the first demobilization sentences featuring fighters and leaders who had not been defeated in combat, in contrast to previous demobilization process with the guerrillas. The then Minister of Interior and Justice Pretelt told the media that requiring full confession may have constituted a violation of the Constitution in force, by self-incrimination. The Attorney General Mario Iguaran said his office intends to continue with all processes involving possible criminal activity not confessed and acted upon in this case as both crimes against demobilized later, if necessary. The
Constitutional Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Law of Justice and Peace. In a decision of April 2006, by 7 votes to 2, no procedural irregularities found in the fact that the process of law in Congress was that of a non-statutory law. On May 18 of 2006, a new fault already referred to the content of the law, the Court conditioned several excerpts of the law and others declared unenforceable, the court ruling stated that "those applying the law must meet to fully the resolutions of the law, as the total crimes confession, reparation and truth, and not re-offend, "unlike the bill that passed the government and Congress approved the full confession which was not a requirement and demonstrate the crimes after demobilization did not affect the legal benefits obtained by demobilized.
Human Rights Watch believes that the Court's decision was a great corrective, solving a number of serious problems and gaps that existed in the original bill. ==Who is covered by the Justice and Peace Law?==