The Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Bogotá's decision to order the immediate release of former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez was recorded in a 38-page document. This came after endorsing a tutela action that sought the protection of the former president's fundamental rights.
The ruling strongly questions the decision issued on August 1 by the 44th judge of Bogotá, who ordered a preventive detention measure against the former president to serve a twelve-year prison sentence for his responsibility in the crimes of procedural fraud and bribery in criminal proceedings.
In short, the Court found that the house arrest measure against the former president was not justified, emphasizing that the need for deprivation of liberty could not be substantiated.
"It is incomprehensible why this deprivation of liberty is necessary for peaceful coexistence and social order," reads one section of the court ruling signed by Judge Leonel Rogeles Moreno.
The Bogotá Superior Court has released former President Álvaro Uribe, who was convicted in the first instance for witness tampering. #SemanaNoticias https://t.co/Be2rDSZpYA — Revista Semana (@RevistaSemana) August 19, 2025
In the central point of the judicial discussion, the Court ruled that it could not be proven that the former president had any intention of evading justice. This is considering that he always attended the hearings, even though it was not his obligation, and that even while he was out of the country attending academic events, he connected virtually.
“There was no evidence of an intention to flee by leaving the country, or that he had made any progress in asylum or refugee proceedings,” states the momentous ruling that ordered the court that issued the sentence to carry out all the procedures for the former president to regain his freedom in the coming hours.
"Therefore, 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 indispensable to protect the process and/or the victims, in respect of whom, when motivating the measure, no specific pronouncement was made," this section adds.
It is also noted that the hearing judge failed to take into account former President Uribe's lack of criminal, disciplinary, or fiscal record, as well as his status as a resident of a city and the fact that he always reported only one address where he lives with his wife.
"He can evade justice by leaving the country": this is the reason why former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez was ordered under house arrest. https://t.co/if1kX8q65f — Revista Semana (@RevistaSemana) August 1, 2025
"Nor can it be ignored that the case has passed the evidentiary phase, so the risk of compromising the procedural truth or tampering with evidence is, in practice, nonexistent," he emphasized, describing the conclusions he reached in ordering house arrest as"subjective, generic, or abstract."
"The adjudicator failed to consider favorable circumstances such as voluntary appearance, absence of procedural breaches, absence of a criminal record, or a proven risk of repeat offenses," he added.
“It is incomprehensible why this deprivation of liberty is necessary for peaceful coexistence and social order,” the decision states.
Currently, the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Bogotá is evaluating the appeal filed by the former president's defense and the Attorney General's Office against the ruling that sentenced him to twelve years in prison.
Superior Court orders the immediate release of former President Uribe by Rafael Pérez-Becerra
