The conviction of Colombia's ex-president is a sign of hope amid autocracy's rise
The attorney Jesus Maria Valle had been pleading with the state governor, Álvaro Uribe, for over a year to stop the paramilitaries' brutal takeover of the countryside and collusion with the military. Instead, Uribe labeled Valle an 'enemy of the armed forces'. In a statement to prosecutors after the El Aro massacre, Valle asked for a full investigation into what he described as an 'alliance' in Antioquia among paramilitaries, the military and Uribe to kill civilians and seize their land, in the name of fighting the country's leftwing FARC guerrillas. Within days, two men in suits strode into Valle's law office in downtown Medellin and shot him dead.
On 1 August, Uribe, who went on to become Colombia's president in 2002, was sentenced to 12 years of house arrest after a Colombian court convicted him of bribing a witness who had linked him to the paramilitaries. The conviction could still be overturned on appeal, but the fact that it has happened at all is a striking development that would have seemed almost inconceivable a decade or so ago. In a time of rising autocracy and abuse, including in the US, it also offers reasons for hope.
For decades, Uribe seemed almost untouchable. As president, he gained domestic and international acclaim – including the US Presidential Medal of Freedom from George W Bush – because of his successes, with billions of dollars in US military aid, in beating back the abusive FARC. When I met him in 2004, he strode about his conference room, lecturing me and my then colleagues on how nobody had done more than he had to bring safety to the country.
Glowing portrayals of Uribe's record at the time routinely glossed over his efforts to pass laws favoring the paramilitaries and to undermine investigations of their links to those in power. During his presidency, the Colombian supreme court conducted what became known as the 'parapolitics' investigations into about one-third of members of Congress for collusion – including in many cases electoral fraud – with the paramilitaries. Uribe engaged in a furious smear campaign against the justices and his intelligence service engaged in illegal surveillance of the justices and independent journalists.
Yet over the years, senior paramilitary leaders have testified as to the involvement of the army and Uribe's chief of staff in Antioquia, Pedro Juan Moreno, in the El Aro massacre. Multiple investigations have documented widespread collusion between paramilitaries and important sectors of the military and political establishment at the time. There is also evidence – including statements that I obtained in a prison interview with a paramilitary leader – that Uribe's office, when he was governor, had close ties to paramilitaries, and that Moreno approved Valle's murder. Uribe has repeatedly denied it all.
The conviction this week emerged in the context of a supreme court investigation into allegations that Uribe started a paramilitary group in the 1990s. Uribe claimed early on that the allegations were manufactured by a member of Congress, but the court found there was no basis to his claims. Instead, the supreme court ordered a new investigation into possible witness tampering by people working for Uribe (then a senator), including alleged payments to paramilitaries to change their testimony. Uribe quit his Senate seat, forcing the case to be moved from the supreme court to a lower court, and – with prosecutors seemingly unwilling to move it forward – it looked for years like the case might just die out like many other previous investigations. However, with a new chief prosecutor in place, the case picked up steam again, finally resulting in this week's conviction.
Not surprisingly, the administration of US President Donald Trump has been trying to discredit Colombia's courts, with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, decrying the 'weaponization of Colombia's judicial branch'. But this is all now part of a tired playbook.
It's the same rhetoric Trump and allies have been using to discredit US courts – even Trump appointees – that have ruled against them. It's how Trump has talked about the case against his buddy Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and about the investigations conducted by the international criminal court. And it's how Uribe himself smeared activists like Jesus Maria Valle in the 1990s and sought to undermine the Colombian supreme court in the early 2000s.
But, to me, this week's ruling stands for something else: that no matter how much power leaders may amass, they are not ultimately above the law. And no matter how desperate the situation, with courage and commitment, there is much we can do to create a path toward accountability.
Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno is CEO of RepresentUs and the author of the award-winning book There Are No Dead Here: A Story of Murder and Denial in Colombia. She spearheaded Human Rights Watch's work on Colombia during most of Uribe's presidency
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The west ignores Rwanda's dark side – and political prisoners like my mother pay the price
When I see the 'Visit Rwanda' logo stitched on to the jerseys of famous football clubs like Arsenal or printed in glossy travel magazines, I feel a rush of pride for the natural beauty and warm hospitality of the country of my birth. Yet, I wonder whether the tourists being courted truly understand the darker side of Rwanda. This side has torn my family apart for nearly two decades; it is the reason my mother sits behind bars, once again, as a political prisoner. My mother, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, is a political activist who first returned to Rwanda from exile in 2010. Our family had a stable and comfortable life in the Netherlands for many years, but my mother could not stop thinking about her native Rwanda and was deeply troubled by the events unfolding there. The president, Paul Kagame, heralded as the man who stopped the 1994 genocide, was quietly becoming yet another strongman on the African continent. My mother could not silently watch from the sidelines in Europe as Rwanda's citizens lost their freedoms and suffered persecution. She eventually returned to Rwanda seeking to challenge Kagame and run for the presidency, but these plans were quickly thwarted. Shortly after her return in 2010, she was arrested and forced to face charges of genocide ideology and terrorism in a trial that was internationally condemned as unfair and a violation of her rights. She was sentenced to 15 years in prison. My mother was in jail for eight years, much of that time in solitary confinement. When she received a presidential pardon in 2018 from President Kagame himself, we thought our family would finally have a chance to reunite. But even though she was no longer imprisoned, my mother was not free. She was prevented from running for elected office. To this day, her political party has not been allowed to officially register. The conditions of her pardon also required her to seek permission if she wanted to travel outside Rwanda, but despite her numerous requests, permission has never been granted. My mother has missed every important moment and milestone in our family's life since her return to Rwanda, from graduations, to weddings, to the birth of her grandchildren. She has not even been allowed to visit her husband, my father, who has faced severe health challenges that have left him paralysed and gravely ill. The conditions of my mother's pardon were set to expire in October of this year. We hoped and believed that this would mean she would have her freedoms and rights fully restored. When I visited her in Rwanda earlier this year – our first reunion in 15 years and the first time she has ever met my wife and children – we dared to plan to celebrate Christmas together. These hopes were dashed when she was arrested on 19 June 2025. She now faces vague and politically motivated charges, including conspiracy to overthrow the government and spreading false information. She is awaiting what will certainly be a political trial, like the one she went through in 2010. Still, in many ways my mother is fortunate. She is alive. The same cannot be said for members of Dalfa Umurinzi, the political party she established. Since 2016, several members have gone missing, and others have been murdered. Their political activism ultimately cost them the highest price, and our mother has often told us this terrible injustice motivates her to keep going in her fight for democracy and respect for human rights. The first time the Rwandan government imprisoned my mother, I was only a child, too young and scared to advocate for the mother I love and admire so deeply. But times have changed, and now I will use my voice whenever and however I can to draw attention to her unjust imprisonment and call for her freedom. I ask democratic leaders and governments around the world to hold Rwanda accountable for violating the standards of international law. Since Kagame became its leader, Rwanda has styled itself as a commendable success story in Africa and a worthy player in the international community. There are too few who question why Kagame wins elections by 99% of the vote while arrests, disappearances and even killings of his critics occur both within and outside Rwanda's borders. We need more governments to raise these questions and demand answers. The country still depends heavily on overseas development assistance, so I join with those who argue that such aid should require Rwanda to ensure true democracy, liberty for all and justice according to the established rule of law. My mother, Victoire, and many other courageous dissidents in Rwanda have risked their lives to speak out for these values. Now I ask the international community to speak out for them. Rwanda needs a consensus democracy, one that solves political problems through dialogue, to move toward a better future for all. But this is impossible as long as an authoritarian regime maintains control. Hope for the freedom of dissidents like my mother, and for all citizens of Rwanda, rests in diplomatic intervention, political pressure and the media's role in uncovering the true nature of the regime in Rwanda. Rémy Amahirwa is the oldest son of the Rwandan dissident Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. He lives in Sweden with his family Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Colombia accuses Peru of fully annexing a disputed island in the Amazon river
Colombian President Gustavo Petro stirred up a decades-old border controversy with Peru on Tuesday when he accused it of fully annexing an Amazon river island that has been administered by Peru for decades, but whose legal status is in dispute. Peru maintains it owns Santa Rosa Island based on treaties about a century old, but Colombia disputes that ownership because the island had not yet emerged from the river at the time. In a message on X, Petro said that Peru acted 'unilaterally' in June when its congress passed a law that upgraded Santa Rosa's legal status by converting it into a district within Peru's Loreto province. The island faces Leticia, a Colombian city of about 60,000 people located in one of the most well-preserved swaths of the Amazon. It is used by many tourists as the launching point for trips into the world's largest rainforest. 'The Peruvian government has just appropriated it by law,' Petro wrote on X, adding that Peru's actions could block Leticia's access to the Amazon river. 'Our government will resort to diplomacy to defend our national sovereignty." In his message, the president was explaining why he plans to hold a celebration in Leticia on Thursday to mark one of the national holidays that commemorates Colombia's independence from Spain. The Colombian goverment usually celebrates the Aug. 7 holiday in the province of Boyaca in central Colombia, but farmers are currently blocking roads in that part of the country to protest environmental regulations that prohibit agriculture in high-altitude areas. Peru's Foreign Affairs Ministry said in a statement that treaties signed by both countries in 1922 and 1929 granted Peru control of Santa Rosa and other nearby islets. 'Peru is complying firmly with its obligations under international law and with valid bilaterial treaties' the statement said. Colombia says that the treaties could not assign ownership of Santa Rosa because in the 1920s the island had not yet emerged from the world's largest river. Instead, Colombia says that the treaties determine that the border between both countries should be set along a line that follows the deepest points along the river bed. Like many rivers, the Amazon changes its course slowly over time, and erosion or changes in the weather can create or submerge islands. Colombia's Foreign Affairs Ministry said Tuesday that 'for years' it has insisted on the need to create a bilateral commission that will assign ownership of islands that have emerged between the South American countries over the past century. The island is made up mostly of forest, farmland and a small village known as Santa Rosa de Yavari, which has a population of less than 1,000 people, according to Peru's latest census. Santa Rosa was previously classified as a community within the Yavari District of Peru's Loreto Province. In June, Peru's congress voted to turn Santa Rosa into its own district, a move that could facilitate the transfer of funds for education and healthcare, and also enable the modest village to raise its own property taxes. 'We have a diverse economy that relies on commerce and tourism' Santa Rosa's Mayor Jack Yovera told Peruvian network RPP in June, when the law to turn his community into a district was being debated by congress. 'But there are many basic needs that have not been met' said Yovera, who explained that as a young man he had to go to high school in the Colombian city of Leticia, on the other side of the Amazon River, due to the lack of a proper high school in Santa Rosa. The border dispute also surfaced last summer, when an official from Colombia's Foreign Affairs Ministry attended a meeting between political leaders from Leticia and Santa Rosa and said that Peru had occupied the island 'irregularly." Yovera left the meeting in protest. Later, Colombia's Foreign Affairs ministry issued a statement saying it 'regretted' the incident and that the situation of Santa Rosa Island should be discussed only by high-level officials from both governments.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Loophole in PM's swap plan means the more bogus an asylum seeker is, the less chance we have of kicking them out
MIGRANTS could dodge deportation under Labour's 'one-in, one-out' swap deal with France by lodging lengthy human rights appeals. The trial, which started yesterday, includes a clause where anyone making a human rights claim cannot be sent back until their case is heard in the courts. 3 3 3 Tories last night warned lawyers will seize on the loophole to delay or block deportations. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: 'This deal is likely to be completely unworkable and will be ruthlessly exploited by lawyers to prevent people being returned to France. 'This deal has no numbers in it — presumably because they are so small. 'Returning just six per cent of illegal immigrants, as reported, will have no deterrent effect whatsoever — because 94 per cent get to stay.' France has agreed to take back a limited number of boat migrants — one for each the UK accepts legally from French soil. But conditions must be met before someone is removed. Britain picking up tab And Tories say that even those with human rights claims which have been certified as 'clearly unfounded' by officials cannot be sent back until their case is dealt with in the courts, which could take years. The Home Office denies this is the case. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the Government won't set targets for how many will be deported. She added: 'We will provide regular updates. People will be able to see how many are being detained, how many are returned. It is right we should be transparent. 'But we're not setting the numbers in advance, firstly because there is no fixed number in terms of the overall number of people to come through this system, and secondly because we're not going to provide (gangs) with that operational information.' Watch moment migrant boat arrives on Spain hols beach before they are chased & tackled by angry locals Ministers hope the new route — where migrants in France apply online — will offer a 'safe and legal' alternative to the boats. But those who have already crossed are not eligible, meaning thousands already here won't be affected. Only around 50 people a week are expected to be returned, equivalent to only one in every 17 boat arrivals. The new legal route to Britain only applies to people already in France who have not tried to cross illegally. To qualify, they must prove they have close family in the UK, are at risk of being trafficked or exploited, or come from a country with a high level of successful asylum claims, such as Afghanistan. Unaccompanied children, people with criminal records, and anyone who has previously been deported from the UK cannot apply. The deal also reveals that Britain is picking up the tab for both directions of travel — paying for the transport of migrants we send back to France and those we bring in legally. Alp Mehmet, of Migration Watch UK, said: 'This Starmer/Macron wheeze has zero chance of working. "It won't discourage migrants, while smugglers will be tempted to pile more people into flimsy vessels.' The deal will remain in force until June 2026. But the legal route can be paused automatically if France slows down on taking people back. More than 25,000 migrants have crossed in small boats in 2025, up 49 per cent on the same point last year.
