Соответствующая норма
Colombia
Practice Relating to Rule 52. Pillage
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) provides that it is prohibited “to steal personal property” of non-combatants, as well as “to plunder the property and belongings” of the civilian population. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, pp. 29 and 30.
Colombia’s Instructors’ Manual (1999) recalls that theft is prohibited. 
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual de Instrucción de la Guía de Conducta para el Soldado e Infante de Marina, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, 1999, p. 30.
Colombia’s Operational Law Manual (2009) states that
4. Rules for the conduct of hostilities
a. Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks and [notion of] protected persons
For its part, the [1977] Additional Protocol II to the [1949] Geneva Conventions adds to these prohibitions … pillage … . All these prohibitions, even if more specific [in Additional Protocol II], can also be derived from common article 3 [to the Geneva Conventions].
c. Restrictions on the means and methods
The means and methods of warfare that can be used are limited. …
… [A]mong the methods that are prohibited under IHL, it is important to underline the following ones:
- the prohibition of pillage[.] 
Colombia, Manual de Derecho Operacional Manual FF.MM. 3-41 Público, Primera Edición 2009, Comando General de las Fuerzas Militares, aprobado por el Comandante General de las Fuerzas Armadas por Disposición Número 056, 7 December 2009, pp. 40, 42 and 53–55.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Colombia’s Military Penal Code (1999) provides for a prison sentence for “anyone who, in combat operation, appropriates movable property, without any justification, for his own profit or the profit of a third person”. 
Colombia, Military Penal Code, 1999, Article 175.
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) imposes a criminal sanction on “anyone who, during an armed conflict, despoils … a protected person”. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 151.
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
Taking into account … the development of customary international humanitarian law applicable in internal armed conflicts, the Constitutional Court notes that the fundamental guarantees stemming from the principle of humanity, some of which have attained ius cogens status, … [include] the prohibition of pillage. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 112.
[footnote in original omitted]
In 2010, in the Diego Vecino and Juancho Dique case, the Justice and Peace Chamber of Colombia’s High District Court of Bogotá convicted two members of the paramilitary group Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia) of several crimes committed against the civilian population. The Court held:
V.2.6.1. Thefts committed in Mampuján
112. In the indictment, the Office of the Attorney General stated that, on 10 March 2000, members of the Montes de María y Norte bloc of the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia entered the town of Mampuján, assembled the inhabitants and, through the use of threats, ordered them to immediately displace. They then seized goods from the village shop, as well as objects from some of the inhabitants.
V.2.6.2. Thefts committed in Isla Múcura
119. Similarly, [according to a] criminal complaint … , on 19 April 2003, … about 30 armed men entered Club Cien in Isla Múcura wearing uniforms and identified themselves as members of the Navy. They said it was a routine search and subsequently proceeded to disarm them, seized arms, jewellery and cash.
120. The evidence provided by the Prosecution regarding this fact, although limited, is sufficient to prove that not only was the population displaced but that its property was also taken, as had occurred in certain previous cases registered on 10 and 11 March 2000. …
144. In summary, these demobilized individuals are convicted of grave breaches of international humanitarian law because, as participants in an armed conflict, they attacked the civilian population by displacing it from its territory, taking the lives of non-combatants and pillaging its property after the incursion. However, owing to the limitation imposed by the principle of legality and considering the date when the acts took place, the offences are considered as ordinary crimes. [The accused] are also convicted of crimes against humanity because their punishable conduct was not isolated. 
Colombia, High District Court of Bogotá, Diego Vecino and Juancho Dique case, Judgment, 29 June 2010, §§ 112, 119–120 and 144.
[footnotes in original omitted]
In 2010, in the El Iguano case, the Justice and Peace Chamber of Colombia’s High District Court of Bogotá convicted a member of the paramilitary group Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia) of several crimes committed against the civilian population. The Court stated:
To meet the objectives established by the commanders of the organization, that is, “to combat its natural enemy: the guerrillas” and their supposed collaborators or sympathizers and to carry out executions pursuant to the misnamed “social cleansing” policy, [members of the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia] resorted to certain criminal acts such as … theft … in the areas where they were present. 
Colombia, High District Court of Bogotá, El Iguano case, Judgment, 2 December 2010, § 137.
With regard to extortions and arbitrary contributions, the Court stated:
[I]t is possible to conclude that the … extortions or arbitrary contributions attributed to the accused have a functional link with the internal armed conflict and, therefore, must be classified as war crimes[.] 
Colombia, High District Court of Bogotá, El Iguano case, Judgment, 2 December 2010, § 197.
The Report on the Practice of Colombia refers to a draft internal working paper of the Colombian Government which stated that pillage and plunder are prohibited by IHL. 
Report on the Practice of Colombia, 1998, Chapter 4.1, referring to Presidential Council, Proposal of the Government to the Coordinator Guerrillerra Simón Bolívar to humanise war, Draft Internal Working Paper, Part entitled “El Derecho Internacional Humanitario”, § 2(m).