Former President Álvaro Uribe was sentenced to 12 years of house arrest for his alleged involvement in the crimes of bribery in criminal proceedings and procedural fraud. The decision, recorded in a 1,114-page ruling, was announced this Friday, August 1.
Judge Sandra Liliana Heredia ordered the former president's immediate transfer to Rionegro, where he will serve house arrest under the authorities' custody.
He based his decision on reasons—not without controversy—such as the "preservation of peaceful and harmonious coexistence among citizens" and "the international recognition of the former president, which would make it easy for him to leave the country to evade the imposed sanction."
"This measure not only has a deterrent and intimidating effect that prevents the commission of crimes, but also avoids the negative perception in society that people can continue to enjoy their freedom despite a conviction," he added.
He was also sentenced to 12 years in prison, more than the nine years the prosecution requested during the reading of the verdict on Monday, July 28.
These were the judge's calculations for determining the sentence:
Regarding the crime of bribery in criminal proceedings, Article 444 of the Penal Code establishes a prison sentence ranging from 6 to 12 years. That is, between 74 and 144 months in prison.
"The sanction is assessed taking into account the greater or lesser seriousness of the conduct, the actual or potential damage created, the nature of the causes that aggravate or mitigate the punishability, the intensity of the intent, the preterintention or concurrent negligence, the need for the penalty and the function that it must fulfill in the case under examination," the sentence reads.
The judge asserts that the type of conduct "is of colossal gravity, due to its potential to distort the truth, to cause errors among judicial officials at the highest hierarchical level (the Courts), to lead to impunity for crimes or the punishment of innocent people, and to hand over beneficial persons who cause harm with their behavior to the point of accusing third parties who had no involvement of dishonorable acts and even of crimes."
Regarding the sentence imposed, which exceeds that of the Prosecutor's Office and which, according to legal experts, was"disproportionate," he stated that it is based on "the perception of trust in institutions," "so that a feeling of impunity is not generated," and " so that the accused refrains from committing further criminal behavior."
Regarding procedural fraud, Article 453 of the Penal Code sets the penalty at 6 to 12 years, or 72 to 144 months, in prison, and a ban from exercising public rights and functions for 5 to 8 years.
The judge justified the maximum sentence for this conduct because"it was not only an act of misleading, but also, through various means, an attempt was made to generate this consequence in the administration of justice."
Likewise, in the"fraud" in which, due to the way in which he acted and in his capacity as a lawyer,"he knew of the illicit nature of his behavior."
"He persisted in its execution, increasingly aggravating the charges against those officials who were indirectly affected, such as the Prosecutor, the Deputy Prosecutor, a magistrate, an assistant magistrate, among others. Therefore, the court considers that the minimum sentence for an event of procedural fraud should be 94 months in prison, and, by virtue of the competition, it is increased by 10 more months, ultimately leaving it at 104 months in prison," the judge stated.
The controversy
Criminal lawyer Duván Castañeda asserted that the 12-year prison sentence imposed on Álvaro Uribe Vélez is disproportionate."There was no need to issue an arrest warrant because there are no grounds to justify the urgency of depriving him of his liberty. The requirements established by the Supreme Court of Justice for ordering an arrest warrant to guarantee compliance with the sentence have also not been met," he said.
Likewise, attorney Víctor Mosquera rejected what he called an"arbitrary, early and unjust deprivation of liberty." "Without a final judgment and without the appeal having been resolved, the presumption of innocence is violated. The judge is acting with bias and excess, anticipating the fulfillment of the sentence without superior oversight," he added.
