The Railroading of Colombia’s Álvaro Uribe
His trial has been marked by legal and judicial irregularities.
By The Editorial Board
Former Colombian former president Alvaro Uribe in 2023 Photo: juan barreto/Agence France-Presse/Getty ImagesAlvaro Uribe’s political enemies have never forgiven him for winning a war against leftwing narco-terrorism while President of Colombia from 2002-2010.
This week they’ve taken another step in exacting revenge.
On Monday a Colombian judge found Mr. Uribe guilty of procedural fraud and bribery.
His lawyers say they’ll appeal and it could go to the Supreme Court.
On Friday a judge sentenced the 73-year-old to 12 years of house arrest, the maximum number of years.
Colombia’s leftist groups and their political supporters have good reason to resent Mr. Uribe.
The guerrillas were partners with drug kingpin Pablo Escobar in the 1980s and other narcos in the 1990s.
By the time Mr. Uribe was inaugurated, they ran lucrative illegal cartels and the nation was nearly a failed state.
Eight years later the guerrillas were beaten, the elected government had restored its authority and, with the help of the U.S., the military had become more professional.
Drug trafficking continued, but the Marxist dream of making the country into another Cuba was dead.
Mr. Uribe’s approval rating was close to 75%.
Thus the political campaign to tarnish his reputation and put him in jail.
A tendentious judiciary is doing its part, and irregular court decisions leading to Monday’s verdict deserve attention.
In 2017 Mr. Uribe sued Colombian Senator Iván Cepeda, alleging that he tried to use illegal means to get imprisoned members of the right-wing paramilitary to provide testimony against Mr. Uribe.
In 2018 the Supreme Court’s criminal chamber for appeals declined to investigate Mr. Uribe’s complaints.
Then, and without the jurisdiction to do so according to his lawyers, the high court ordered an investigation of Mr. Uribe.
Mr. Uribe’s lawyers say they were excluded from investigative proceedings in 2018 and from learning about testimony against the former President.
They also say the court violated attorney-client privilege, issued prejudicial rulings, and allowed leaks to the press.
At trial the prosecutor alleged that Mr. Uribe employed a strategy of “forcing witnesses to retract their statements and constructing an exculpatory narrative that favored his personal interests.”
As evidence she relied on secretly recorded conversations between Mr. Uribe’s lawyer and a former member of the paramilitary who was in prison.
The government also tapped Mr. Uribe’s phone line and made use of those recordings.
This was highly irregular because the standard in Colombian courts is that wiretaps and recordings made without the knowledge of participants can’t be used as evidence—not even against known members of terrorist organizations.
But for Mr. Uribe the court made an exception.
There’s nothing unusual about Colombia lawyers visiting prisoners in jail to discuss testimony.
Former paramilitary members often change their stories, and it’s normal to ask what the lawyer can do for them.
Lawyers may not promise a legal outcome or a financial reward, and the recorded audio doesn’t prove that Mr. Uribe or his lawyer did either.
Some of the back and forth suggests negotiation for things like legal assistance, but that’s a long way from a bribe.
Mr. Uribe’s lawyers also insist that the prosecutor cherry-picked fragments of the recordings to deceive the court and public.
These are only a few of the violations of Mr. Uribe’s right to due process.
Whether that right can be restored on appeal will be a major test of the rule of law in South America’s oldest democracy.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario