The Supreme Court of Colombia has upheld the 28-year-and-four-month prison sentence imposed on Santiago Uribe Vélez, brother of former President Álvaro Uribe, for aggravated homicide, founding a paramilitary group, and aggravated criminal conspiracy, ending a judicial process that lasted more than three decades.

The decision was issued in ruling SP499 on June 3, 2026, in which the country’s highest court ratified a November 2025 verdict by the Antioquia Superior Court. That court concluded that Uribe Vélez led the paramilitary group known as Los 12 Apóstoles, an illegal organization that operated in northern Antioquia during the 1990s.

“The Supreme Court has confirmed the conviction of my brother Santiago. This is a devastating matter for my family,” former President Álvaro Uribe wrote on X after the ruling became public.

Jaime Granados, attorney for both Santiago Uribe and the former president, described the ruling as “unjust” in a public statement, although he acknowledged that it must be “respected and complied with.” Granados also said he would continue defending his client’s innocence despite the fact that the Supreme Court’s decision exhausts all ordinary appeals within Colombia’s judicial system.

Los 12 Apóstoles and the killing of Camilo Barrientos

The full court concluded that Santiago Uribe was one of the leaders of Los 12 Apóstoles, a paramilitary organization accused of carrying out a systematic campaign of killings in coordination with state agents, a practice historically referred to in Colombia as “social cleansing.”

One of the central events in the case was the killing of Camilo Barrientos, a bus driver who was shot by hired gunmen on February 25, 1994, in Antioquia after being falsely accused of collaborating with guerrilla groups.

According to the ruling, the homicide formed part of a broader strategy aimed at persecuting and eliminating individuals considered undesirable or allegedly linked to insurgent organizations.

A judicial process lasting more than 30 years

The investigation against Santiago Uribe dates back to 1995, when judicial proceedings first began regarding the creation and operation of Los 12 Apóstoles.

According to court records, the organization was allegedly created in 1992 by ranchers and business owners in northern Antioquia with the stated objective of providing a form of “private justice” in response to the presence of illegal armed groups in the region.

Authorities maintain that the group carried out a systematic campaign of killings in municipalities including Campamento, Yarumal and Valdivia, targeting people labeled as common criminals, drug users or alleged guerrilla collaborators.

The investigation was initially closed in 1999. However, the case was reopened years later following new testimony, including statements by retired National Police Maj. Juan Carlos Meneses, who in 2010 once again linked Santiago Uribe to the paramilitary organization.

From acquittal to final conviction

Santiago Uribe was acquitted in November 2024 by Judge Jaime Herrera Niño, who acknowledged the existence of Los 12 Apóstoles but concluded that prosecutors had presented evidentiary inconsistencies and that several witness testimonies lacked sufficient reliability to support a conviction.

By that time, Uribe had already spent two years in detention between 2016 and 2018 under a preventive custody order.

The situation changed in November 2025, when the Antioquia Superior Court overturned the acquittal and concluded that the defendant had led a criminal organization, sentencing him to 28 years and four months in prison.

The Supreme Court’s decision now fully upholds that sentence and definitively establishes the criminal responsibility of the former president’s brother.

Although the ruling concerns only Santiago Uribe Vélez, the case has had broader political repercussions because of the public prominence of his family. Former President Álvaro Uribe, one of the most influential figures in Colombian politics over the past several decades, has repeatedly denied any connection to paramilitary groups.

To date, no judicial authority has convicted the former president of crimes related to such allegations. However, more than 25 judicial proceedings connected to his alleged political links to paramilitary groups have remained open in recent years.

One of the most prominent cases involving former President Álvaro Uribe originated from complaints filed by current presidential candidate Iván Cepeda, alleging witness tampering in criminal proceedings and procedural fraud. Although Uribe was convicted in a lower court in 2025, he was later acquitted by a higher court, meaning the case did not result in a final conviction.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, the case against Santiago Uribe Vélez is now closed within Colombia’s ordinary judicial system.

Judge Heredia’s ruling orders the immediate house arrest of Uribe at his rural property in Rionegro, Antioquia. The judge cited five primary reasons for her decision to impose immediate detention, noting the need to prevent the former president from committing new crimes and to reinforce the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Heredia stated that allowing Uribe to remain free would send the wrong signal and that his actions had eroded public trust in Colombian institutions, necessitating a “strong and exemplary response.” She also pointed to what she described as maneuvers to delay the trial and concluded there was a significant risk that Uribe, due to his international recognition, might flee the country to avoid serving his sentence.

Uribe’s defense team, led by attorneys Jaime Granados and Jaime Lombana, has announced its intention to appeal the decision. Judge Heredia has granted the defense seven days to file the appeal. The case will then be reviewed by a three-judge panel at the Superior Tribunal of Bogotá, which will issue a final ruling. The case must be resolved by October 15, as the statute of limitations will expire on that date. A failure to issue a final decision by this deadline would result in the dismissal of the charges.

The Bribery and Witness Tampering Charges

The case against Uribe dates back to a long-standing legal and political dispute with Senator Iván Cepeda Castro of the Democratic Pole (Polo Democrático) party. The conflict originated in 2012 when Cepeda, then a congressman, was conducting investigations into alleged ties between Uribe and paramilitary groups. As part of his work, Cepeda interviewed former paramilitaries who claimed Uribe and his brother, Santiago Uribe, had connections to these groups. In response, Uribe accused Cepeda of witness tampering, alleging that the senator had offered benefits to inmates in exchange for false testimony. Uribe formally filed a criminal complaint against Cepeda with the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice.

The supreme court investigated both Uribe’s claims and Cepeda’s evidence. In 2018, the court dismissed the case against Cepeda, concluding that his actions were protected under his mandate as a legislator and that there was no evidence of coercion or bribery. Instead, the court found evidence that Uribe and his associates had engaged in witness tampering and bribery. Consequently, the supreme court initiated a criminal investigation against Uribe for procedural fraud and witness bribery.

The Supreme Court’s case was later transferred to the Attorney General of Colombia, which proceeded with the prosecution. According to the court’s recent ruling, the prosecution, led by prosecutor Marlene Orjuela, successfully demonstrated “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Uribe had instructed lawyer Diego Cadena to bribe and pressure witnesses.

Judge Heredia determined that Uribe had “instrumentalized” Cadena, an attorney known for representing narcotics traffickers, to solicit false statements from incarcerated paramilitaries. The objective was for these individuals to falsely declare that Cepeda had offered them legal and financial benefits in exchange for implicating Uribe in paramilitary activities. The court found that Uribe was aware of the false nature of the testimonies collected by Cadena and still authorized their submission to the court, which constituted the crime of procedural fraud.

The judge also specified three instances where Cadena, at Uribe’s behest, offered benefits to potential witnesses:

1. Juan Guillermo Monsalve: Offered legal benefits.
2. Carlos Vélez: Offered cash payments.
3. Euridice Cortés (alias “Diana”): Offered cash payments.

The court did, however, acquit Uribe on a separate charge of simple bribery involving former prosecutor Hilda Niño, concluding that she had secured a prison transfer through legal channels rather than Uribe’s intervention. A charge related to ex-paramilitary Harlington Mosquera was also dismissed due to a lack of evidence.

Social Media Exchanges Escalate Following Uribe’s Conviction

The first-instance ruling against Álvaro Uribe has intensified long-standing political hostilities, with social media becoming a primary arena for public statements and counter-arguments. The day after the conviction, current Colombian President Gustavo Petro, a long-time political rival of Uribe, published a series of messages that were widely interpreted as references to the former president.

Petro’s posts alluded to Uribe without naming him directly:

“The landowner, legitimate heir of the Spanish feudal lord, ends up in years that are for rest and love, and grandchildren, imprisoned in his hacienda. The horse trots the hallways of the house, again and again, because the hidalgo cannot gallop out as he would like, perhaps, as the horse would like, to be free in the hills or the meadows of the plains.”

He added further:

“It is a time for rest; the warrior knows how to rest. It’s a time for freedom. No more hidalgos and landowners of fertile lands without producing food.”

Petro’s posts, which mentioned the 1975 novel The Autumn of the Patriarch by Gabriel García Márquez, prompted a response from the political party Uribe founded, the Centro Democrático (Democratic Center). The party’s official account replied to Petro:

“Calm down, President, no one asked you to write your autobiography in the form of an alcoholic soliloquy. How curious that you talk about haciendas, horses, slaves, and women who serve coffee, as if Colombia were the eternal stage of your class traumas and not a republic with real problems that you neither know nor want to solve. Are you talking about freedom? But you attack the press, justice, private property, investment, and even grandparents who retire in the countryside. Your idea of freedom is that of the confused commander, locked in his palace, hearing voices and believing himself to be the messiah. While children go hungry and the countryside remains unproductive (under your government, not the hidalgo’s), you drown in metaphors that not even your ministers understand.”

Senator Iván Cepeda also made a public statement on social media, criticizing what he claimed was an effort by Uribe’s allies to lobby the United States government.

“The infamous lobbying that the envoys of the first-instance convict, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, are doing in the USA seeks not only to weaken the judicial branch, but to generate sanctions for all Colombians if they fail to regain their impunity. It is, without a doubt, treason against the homeland.”

In response, Tomás Uribe, the former president’s son, wrote directly to Cepeda:

“Mr. Iván Cepeda Castro, I invite you to turn yourself in to the American authorities and seek an agreement in exchange for ratting out your FARC friends and revealing the cocaine routes and the political masterminds of drug trafficking. Dr. Cadena can help you with this.”

Cepeda later addressed this exchange in a media interview, challenging Tomás Uribe to take his allegations to the proper legal channels:

“If he has any complaint to make, let him file it, and if he wants, we’ll see each other in court, just as I did with his father.”

In her comprehensive, first-instance ruling, Judge Heredia systematically validated the arguments presented by the Fiscalía General de la Nación (Attorney General’s Office) while dismantling the defense’s counterarguments for each of the charges. The case centered on a years-long investigation into whether Uribe and his associates manipulated witnesses to discredit accusations linking him to the formation of right-wing paramilitary groups.

“The accused (Uribe) knew of the plan,” Judge Heredia stated definitively, concluding that the charge of bribing a witness in a criminal proceeding in the case of former paramilitary Juan Guillermo Monsalve was proven “beyond all doubt.”

Before delivering her verdict, the judge called for respect for the judicial process, affirming the decision was based strictly on law. She acknowledged the “gallantry and cordiality” of the former president throughout the trial. “This is not a trial against the political history of Colombia, it is not revenge, it is not an act of opposition,” Judge Heredia insisted. “It is an act of justice and only of justice.”

The ruling is a first-instance decision and is subject to a multi-stage appeals process.

Systematic Rejection of Defense Arguments

Judge Heredia dedicated significant time to explaining her legal reasoning, particularly regarding key evidence challenged by Uribe’s defense team, led by attorney Jaime Granados.

A central defense argument was that wiretapped conversations between Uribe and his then-lawyer, Diego Cadena, should be inadmissible due to attorney-client privilege. The judge firmly rejected this, stating that professional privilege cannot shield criminal activity. “The practice of law would have been denatured as a means to hide conduct,” she declared, adding that “professional secrecy cannot become a barrier to detecting punishable acts.”

Similarly, the court validated crucial recordings made by witness Juan Guillermo Monsalve on a spy watch, which captured conversations with Cadena. The defense had hired an expert who questioned the integrity of the files. However, the judge found that any technical questions were “not sufficient to deny the identity between the original file, the one delivered to the Court, and the one presented in the oral trial.” She gave full credibility to the testimonies of Monsalve and his ex-partner, Deyanira Gómez, who helped secure the recordings.

Genesis of the Case: An Investigation That Backfired

The complex legal saga began not with an investigation into Uribe, but with one he initiated. On September 17, 2014, Senator Iván Cepeda held a debate in the Senate of the Republic on the history of paramilitarism in Antioquia. During the debate, he presented testimony from former paramilitaries linking Uribe and his brother, Santiago, to the founding of the Bloque Metro of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC).

In response, Uribe filed a complaint with the Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice)—the high court for members of congress—accusing Cepeda of manipulating those same witnesses. However, after investigating, the Supreme Court found inconsistencies in Uribe’s claims. On February 16, 2018, it took the dramatic step of closing the case against Cepeda and opening a formal investigation into former President Uribe for witness tampering, setting the current trial in motion.

Next Steps: Sentencing and Appeals

With the guilty verdict delivered, Judge Heredia has scheduled a hearing in August to read the full sentence, which will detail the length of the prison term and the complete reasoning behind the conviction.

Following the August sentencing, the legal process will continue. “Once that sentence is read, all parties are given the opportunity to file an appeal,” explained lawyer Santiago Trespalacios to El Colombiano. “When the appeal is filed, there are five days to support it, and then the decision goes to the Superior Tribunal of Bogotá.”

A three-magistrate panel at the tribunal would then review the case and rule on the appeal. If that second-instance decision is challenged, the case could ultimately return to the Supreme Court of Justice for a final judgment.

Uribe’s lead counsel, Jaime Granados, has noted that the nature of the crimes could allow for alternatives to prison. “We are certainly talking about a scenario where, due to the very nature of the offenses, they admit house arrest,” he stated.

Jaime Granados, Uribe’s lead attorney, argued that Judge Heredia should have halted the initial hearing when the defense filed a motion for her recusal, rather than dismissing it as an attempt to delay proceedings. “At the moment, we are not pursuing a lawsuit against the judge. What we want is for Álvaro Uribe’s right to be respected—that of an impartial judge—and the judge has not demonstrated the impartiality required by international standards and our own Constitution,” he told the broadcasting network Caracol Radio.

Despite the suspension, all evidence gathered so far remains valid, and the trial will resume once the tribunal issues a final ruling on the recusal motion. Judge Heredia announced that she must refer the appeal to a circuit judge, who will have three days to decide whether to grant the request to remove her from the proceedings, according to Medellín newspaper El Colombiano. The trial is expected to resume in late March.

However, this delay poses a serious risk to the case, given that it must be concluded before the statute of limitations expires on October 8, 2025. Within the next eight months, 105 witnesses must present their testimonies, and the court must analyze extensive documentary, audio, and video evidence. Both the initial circuit court and the tribunal handling appeals must reach a verdict before the deadline to avoid case dismissal due to expiration.

This trial represents an unprecedented legal challenge in Colombia, as no former president has ever faced such proceedings.

Uribe, Colombia’s president from 2002 to 2010, faces charges of bribery, procedural fraud, and bribery in a judicial proceeding. Prosecutors must determine whether he instigated others to manipulate witness testimony in an attempt to mislead the judiciary for his benefit.

The case was born in 2012 when Uribe filed a complaint against Senator Iván Cepeda, accusing him of abusing his public office, aggravated defamation, and procedural fraud. Cepeda had presented testimonies from former paramilitaries Juan Guillermo Monsalve and Pablo Hernán Sierra, alleging Uribe’s ties to paramilitary groups in Antioquia. However, in 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed Uribe’s complaint and instead launched an investigation into whether he had manipulated witnesses to discredit Cepeda.

Key evidence includes a 2018 recording made by Monsalve, in which Uribe’s legal envoy, Diego Cadena, is heard offering legal benefits in exchange for altering testimony. Cadena allegedly made payments and attempted to persuade various imprisoned witnesses to change their statements. The case became even more complex when Cadena himself was charged with procedural fraud and bribery in a separate trial.

Three key prosecution witnesses include: Juan Guillermo Monsalve, a former paramilitary who secretly recorded Diego Cadena offering him legal benefits; Deyanira Gómez, Monsalve’s former partner, who collaborated with authorities and provided the spy watch that captured Cadena’s offer; and Carlos Enrique Vélez, alias “Víctor,” another former paramilitary, who claims Cadena offered him a bribe to testify in Uribe’s favor

Uribe’s defense also has crucial witnesses, including: Diego Cadena, who insists that any offers made were independent of Uribe’s knowledge; Carlos López, alias “Caliche,” a friend of Monsalve, who claims he tried to persuade Monsalve to support Uribe out of personal admiration rather than direct orders and several ex-paramilitaries, who allege that Cepeda initially offered them benefits to testify against Uribe, although their credibility has been questioned.

Three main pieces of evidence play a pivotal role in the case: Recordings capturing Cadena’s interactions with Monsalve; records of payments to alias “Víctor”, which the prosecution views as proof of bribery, though the defense argues Uribe was unaware; and intercepted communications between Uribe and Cadena, which could confirm Uribe’s involvement, in spite of the fact that the defense contends they were illegally obtained and should be inadmissible.

Headline photo: The entire trial against former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe Vélez has been streamed live, allowing the public to follow every development in real time (Image: Radio Nacional de Colombia / Youtube)