EL TIEMPO has just learned the first-hand account of the protection ordering the release of former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez.
" Annul the fourth paragraph of the judgment issued on August 1, 2025, by the 44th Criminal Circuit Court of Bogotá, insofar as it ordered the immediate deprivation of liberty of citizen Álvaro Uribe Vélez; until the corresponding criminal decision chamber of this Court defines the appeal filed against this first instance determination. Consequently, order that the court in question immediately issue the release order in favor of the guardian," the document reads.
The decision
The ruling, signed by judges Leonel Rogeles Moreno and Aura Alexandra Rosero, asserts that the libelist argued that the fundamental rights to human dignity, due process, the presumption of innocence, and the freedom of Uribe Vélez had been violated.
Furthermore, it is asserted that the president's defense expressed its disagreement with the decision regarding compliance with the sanction imposed in the first instance.
"He questioned the order to deprive him of his liberty without the ruling becoming final, because an appeal was filed and is currently being processed," the document reads.
The defense's questions
The protection ruling also states that it was questioned that, in general terms, it was indicated that the former president's defense used"systematic dilatory strategies to prevent the trial from taking place," which in its opinion exceeded "the legitimate margins of defense"; but it did not specify what it was referring to, which in any case is false, because the accusation took place in two sessions and although there were two requests for annulment that were rejected outright and an appeal was filed, in the order of July 2, 2024, the judge was forced to allow the appeal to be filed.
(See all articles from EL TIEMPO's Investigative Unit here)
It was added that despite the complexity of the matter, the trial took place within a rational timeframe, because the indictment was filed on April 9, 2024, and the first instance judgment was issued on August 1, 2025.
Furthermore, the document also states that:"The intention to flee by leaving the country was not demonstrated, nor was any asylum or refuge procedure carried out, so there is no objective evidence of evasion and in a State of Law, the security measures cannot be based on supposed future risks, merely hypothetical or on conjectures derived from the social recognition of the accused, but on impartial, current and verifiable circumstances that make their imposition essential to protect the process and/or the victims, regarding whom, when motivating the measure, no specific pronouncement was made."
