Due to doubtful evidence, former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez was acquitted of bribing witnesses.

Judge Sandra Heredia explained that "the alternative theory proposed by the defense fully achieved its purpose of exposing the vigorous conflict between two opposing arguments; one that assumes that the prison transfer occurred due to bribery, which Niño Farfán was subjected to, at the request of Álvaro Uribe Vélez."

Furthermore, he explained:"And the other premise that tends to design that this dynamism of the captive, by activating the jurisdictional apparatus, allowed it to achieve the objective through legal means, so to that extent this judicial court can only choose to admit the second factual hypothesis and exempt the accused from the charge."

Although the former president was acquitted of bribing witnesses in the case of former prosecutor Hilda Niño, the judge found him guilty of bribery in criminal proceedings and procedural fraud.

The 44th Bogotá court made that decision—to acquit a crime—amid issuing the ruling in the criminal proceedings against former President Uribe Vélez.

For the judge, the Attorney General's Office failed to prove the charge of bribery of witnesses at the trial stage."It failed to meet its obligation to demonstrate the defendant's responsibility beyond all reasonable limits," the judge stated.

"It is imperative to state that the doubt about the reason for the transfer does not prevent us from ignoring the fact that the Attorney General's Office did prove illicit conduct in this incident, but the administration of justice cannot assume exclusive powers over the person in charge of the criminal prosecution and impose a punishment for acts other than those attributed in the preliminary investigation," the judge clarified.

Judge Sandra Heredia also explained: "The failure of the accusatory theory stems from its genesis, in the presentation of the indictment, which is not attributable to the current delegate, but to her predecessors, who presented the legally relevant facts in a fluid manner that prevented the dispute from being resolved, as well as the factual qualification from being demonstrated in the oral trial. Therefore, regardless of the persuasive force of the evidence, the conviction was inadmissible."