Author: Equipo In.Visibles Illustration: Jonathan Gómez
This trial is not a trial against political history, it is not revenge. It is an act of justice and only justice.”
With these words, Judge Sandra Heredia announced the beginning of the end of a long process in which former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, 73, was found guilty of procedural fraud and bribery in a case linking him to paramilitary groups and dividing the country. On Friday, Uribe, who says the ruling is politically motivated, was sentenced to 12 years in prison, which he will serve under house arrest. His lawyers say they will appeal.
Here’s what you need to know about the case and what it means.
Álvaro Uribe is one of the leading figures on the Colombian political scene. A lawyer by profession, he was a senator, mayor of the city of Medellín and governor of the department of Antioquia before becoming president in 2002 and being re-elected in 2006.
Since coming to power, he has been obsessed with fighting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – FARC), the now demobilised guerrilla that murdered his father, cattle rancher Alberto Uribe Sierra, in 1983.
During his presidencies, he promoted a heavy-handed approach to security and, although he managed to restore a sense of security to millions of people, mainly those living in large cities, he was accused of allowing abuses such as the extrajudicial execution of young people who were then disguised as “guerrillas killed in combat” as well as widespread espionage of opposition members, judges and journalists.
The Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) estimates that at least 6,402 people were victims of killings and disappearances at the hands of the state during Uribe’s presidency.
The case against Uribe began in 2012, when Senator Iván Cepeda accused him of being linked to the Bloque Metro, a branch of the paramilitary group Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) founded in the late 1990s and operating in Antioquia, Uribe’s political birthplace and place of residence.
These groups were responsible for almost half of the homicides recorded in the context of the conflict in Colombia, most of them in the department of Antioquia, according to data from the Truth Commission.
The judge clarified that the ruling does not determine whether Uribe supported paramilitary groups, but rather revealed that the president attempted to silence people who would testify against him.
According to the investigation, Uribe asked his lawyer, Diego Cadena, to offer benefits to individuals, including former paramilitary Juan Guillermo Monsalve, to change his testimony linking the former president and his family to these groups. But when Cadena visited Monsalve in February 2018 in the prison where he is serving a sentence for kidnapping and extortion to make the offer, Monsalve recorded the conversation.
The Supreme Court then opened a case against the former president. Uribe has always denied the allegations and claims he is the victim of political persecution.
The case is undoubtedly historic. In addition to being the first head of state in Colombia’s modern history to be convicted of a criminal offence, Uribe is still a very influential and polarising figure in a country that continues to suffer from armed violence and is preparing for presidential elections in 2026.
“This case helps us understand the type of society we live in and the relationship we have with justice, what we can expect from justice as citizens, and the idea that no one is above the law, not even the most powerful man in the country. This is very important in a country where institutions are constantly being questioned,” says Ángela Olaya Castro, Senior Analyst at the Conflict Responses Foundation, CORE.
Olaya Castro adds that the process has brought to light the importance of the relationship between politicians and armed groups and helps to understand the role that decision-makers play in the violence that affects thousands of people.
That depends on how you look at it.
For the families of those killed by paramilitaries, it is a step forward, says Olaya.
“For the victims of paramilitarism, this means a lot, a great deal. They find at least a little peace in the face of so much pain. Uribe now has the word ‘convicted’ on his record, and that is already a lot,” explains Olaya.
“For the territories that have been affected by multiple cycles of violence, for those who have managed to remember, this is very important. In the Colombian Caribbean, for example, this is very important because it gives them a glimmer of hope that they will get justice, even if it is more symbolic than anything else.”
The figures and the stories tell a tragic present.
The country continues to have one of the highest homicide rates in Latin America, and attacks against civilians and internal displacement figures continue to rise. The Red Cross says that 2025 is shaping up to be the year with the most humanitarian crises. Colombia remains one of the most dangerous countries for human rights defenders. The peace process with the FARC remains unimplemented, while President Petro’s Total Peace strategy does not appear to be yielding results.
Olaya says that the way armed groups operate has changed, with most wanting to keep a low profile.
“One of the strategies now is that, if there is a confrontation, one of the (armed) actors prevents the population from moving, even if it means using force, because if they move, it generates a humanitarian alert, and they want to prevent the information from getting out,” she explains.
Beyond the ruling, this process, which has already taken 13 years, still has a long way to go.
Uribe’s defence team has already announced that it will appeal the ruling, and the Bogotá High Court will have until 8 October to decide.
Meanwhile, the back-and-forth between representatives of all political forces continues.
But in the end, Olaya says that what matters about this process is that it highlighted the need for a national conversation about the levels of violence that society is willing to live with.
“Uribe came to power because people were overwhelmed by visible violence, which led them to relax other rights and not believe they were so important. But those people cannot continue to think that their decisions have had no consequences.”
