After the Superior Court of Bogotá ordered the immediate release of former President Álvaro Uribe, Senator Iván Cepeda spoke out.
(In context: Attention: guardianship ruling orders immediate release of former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez ).
"We, as victims, have always respected and complied with judicial decisions throughout this process. Of course, we respect this one, but we do not share it," he stated upon leaving the Congress of the Republic.
Senator Cepeda accused former President Uribe of"carrying out numerous actions to pressure the justice system" and "campaigns" against him.
"We believe that the measure imposed by Judge Heredia was, in some way, a measure to protect us from this type of action," he added.
As he anticipated, he will appeal the Court's order:"With all calm and serenity, we say that we respect this decision and will proceed from our perspective in relation to what we consider pertinent."
Why did the Court order the immediate release of former President Álvaro Uribe?
The Superior Court of Bogotá ordered the immediate release of Álvaro Uribe after analyzing a protection order that the former president had filed against a 12-year house arrest sentence against him.
It is worth remembering that Uribe was convicted in the first instance by Judge Sandra Heredia, of the 44th Criminal Circuit Court of Bogotá, who found him guilty of the crimes of bribery in criminal proceedings and procedural fraud.
Judge Heredia had ordered his"immediate deprivation of liberty." However, the former president's lawyers filed a writ of protection with the Court.
The former president's legal team asserted that his "fundamental rights to human dignity, due process, the presumption of innocence, and freedom" were allegedly violated.
After analyzing the case, the Court decided to protect"the fundamental right to individual liberty of citizen Álvaro Uribe Vélez," as stated in the ruling issued on August 19, 2025.
The Court considered that the Court's criteria for ordering the deprivation of liberty were"vague, indeterminate and imprecise."
"The defendant's good behavior during the proceedings and his voluntary attendance at the summons contradict the need for his immediate deprivation of liberty," reads another section of the ruling.
However, the Court clarified that the order to deprive Uribe of his liberty will remain in effect"until" its criminal court decides "the appeal filed against that first-instance ruling."
That is to say,
