TalCual |

The Bogotá Superior Court overturned the conviction of Álvaro Uribe Vélez, declaring the wiretaps that underpinned the case unlawful. The decision represents a political relief for the former president and his party, but raises questions about the use of mistakenly obtained evidence in judicial proceedings.

Colombia's most sensitive judicial case has taken a turn that reshuffles the political and legal landscape. The Bogotá Superior Court acquitted former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez in the case for alleged witness bribery, ruling that the wiretaps that served as the basis for the conviction in the first instance were illegal.

The Court determined that the wiretaps on Uribe's phone, carried out in 2018, were the result of a technical error: the Supreme Court had ordered the tapping of Congressman Nilton Córdoba's number in an investigation known as the robe cartel, but investigators mistakenly intercepted the then-senator and former president's line. The Court concluded that this confusion violated his right to privacy and ruled out the possibility that it was a coincidental discovery.

The ruling The Court ordered the exclusion of these recordings from the case file, although it upheld the interceptions of attorney Diego Cadena, considering them to fall within the exception that allows their use when the attorney-client relationship is used to commit crimes. With this, the Court cleared the most incriminating section of the case and redefined its evidentiary basis.

Substantively, the decision reviewed three key episodes. In the case of Carlos Enrique Vélez, the Chamber found no evidence that Uribe had instructed his lawyer to offer illicit benefits and ordered an investigation into the witness for possible false testimony. In the case of Eurídice Cortés, alias Diana, there was also no evidence that the former president ordered payments or negotiations. Finally, in the case of Juan Guillermo Monsalve, the judges pointed out inconsistencies, a lack of independent corroboration, and methodological errors by the trial judge, who favored one hypothesis without comparing alternatives.

The ruling emphasizes a classic principle of criminal law: the existence of gifts or actions is not enough; the unlawful intent of the person in charge must be proven. This connection, the Court concluded, was not demonstrated with the required solidity.

On the institutional level, the judges warned that validating erroneous interceptions would open the door to indiscriminate fishing that threatens the rule of law. They emphasized that procedural rules must be interpreted under the proportionality test and strict respect for constitutional guarantees.

The ruling, over 700 pages long, establishes four pillars: exclusion of Uribe's phone recordings, validity of Cadena's recordings, rejection of nullity claims, and acquittal for the bribery incidents. An appeal is still possible before the Supreme Court of Justice, which must decide whether to admit it.

Politically, the decision gives the former president and his party a breath of fresh air after seven years of judicial wear and tear. But it also offers lessons: the Court emphasized that interviewing witnesses or seeking testimony is a legitimate defense practice, as long as it does not cross the line separating legal strategy from inducing false testimony. The legal boundary was better defined; the political struggle, less so.