Restoring what was taken: judicialized restorative practices, enforced disappearance and the governance of reparation in Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace

Judicialized restorative justice is increasingly presented as a response to the limits of retributive accountability, yet its capacity to address enforced disappearance remains untested. Drawing on a qualitative documentary analysis of decisions of Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), its normative framework and institutional reporting up to July 2026, this article argues that the central vulnerability of the model lies not in its normative design, but in a governance gap conditioning whether restorative sanctions can be implemented, verified and corrected. It proposes ‘restorative density’ as a framework assessing four dimensions of institutional quality: meaningful victim participation, harm-activity traceability, verified implementation and correction mechanisms. Applied systematically to four practices, it generates differentiated profiles rather than a uniform verdict. Traceability is strongest where an activity responds directly to the continuing uncertainty that constitutes disappearance; verification and correction vary with the degree of judicialization. Restorative justice for disappearance therefore requires state co-responsibility extending beyond the judicial sphere.