Article 270 of the Criminal Code refers to the violation of moral rights with penalties aggravated by article 14 of Act No. 890 of 2004, which provides for deprivation of liberty for 32 to 90 months and a fine of 26.66 to 300 statutory minimum monthly wages.24 There are more than 80 institutions in Colombia that use Turnitin, including Universidad de los Andes (Bogotá), Politécnico Grancolombiano (Bogotá and Medellín), Politécnico Colombiano JIC (Medellín), Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Campus Bogotá, Medellín, Manizales, Palmira, Amazonía, Orinoquía, Caribe and Tumaco), Universidad EAFIT (Medellín), Universidad de San Buenaventura (Medellín), Universidad EIA (Envigado), Universidad ICESI (Cali), Universidad del Rosario (Bogotá), Colegio Alemán de Medellín, Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (Bogotá), among others. It is unacceptable that the ICA, instead of promoting rural development, which guarantees the protection of the nation`s genetic heritage and the rights of millions of farmers, indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians, becomes a police unit that persecutes, persecutes and punishes farmers for doing the work of improvement with dignity, using, storing, bartering and marketing seeds. Article 271 refers to the infringement of economic rights of copyright and related rights, as amended by Article 2 of Law 1032 of 2006; Article 272 on violation of mechanisms for the protection of copyright and related rights and other fraud, amended by Article 3 of the same Law 1032 of 2006 and stipulates that all persons involved in this crime are liable to imprisonment from four to eight ± years and a fine of 26.66 to 1,000 at the legal minimum monthly wage 24. In addition, the ICA has received greater economic resources that will be used to hire qualified staff to carry out the brigades that “fight against the scourge of illegality that keeps national plant health under control”, as recently announced at the Acosemillas Assembly, Ms. Ana Luisa Diaz, ICA`s Technical Director of Seeds. The ICA can exercise control over all seeds in the country, can enter any property or agricultural plot and carry out inspections, seizures, destruction of seeds and conviction of seed breeders in case it finds “illegal” protected seeds or domestic seeds that are not certified for marketing, or even food products such as rice, corn, beans or potatoes that can possibly be used as seeds. 1. Article 4 of Law 1032 of 2006 (Penal Code) states: “Anyone who fraudulently usurps the rights of breeders protected by law or similarly confused with a right protected by law shall be punished by imprisonment for 4 to 8 years and a fine of 26.6 to 1,500 statutory monthly minimum wages.” This rule penalises the use of protected seed by companies without authorisation, but in reality it aims to ensure that all farmers use only registered and certified seed. The most critical aspect of this standard is that the use of indigenous seeds that are “equally confusing” with a legally protected seed can be punished and prosecuted; That is, farmers who own domestic seeds that look like corporate seeds could be criminalized. But who will determine what is confusing?, confusing for whom?; Moreover, what basis can be used to punish a similarity, especially if what is punished for its similarity existed before the one to which it is compared? – ICA Resolution 1893 (1995): National Register of Protected Plant Varieties and Methods of Obtaining a Breeder`s Certificate – Law 243 of 1995: UPOV-1978 International Convention – Law 1032 of 2006 (amendment of art.