Home » News » Senator Iván Cepeda talks about the case of former President Uribe – Political Parties – Politics

Senator Iván Cepeda talks about the case of former President Uribe – Political Parties – Politics


What do you think about Álvaro Uribe empowering you ‘the young senator from Far’?

First I must make an obligatory reference: in the interview that he gave you and Vicky Dávila, Álvaro Uribe assimilated the Supreme Court of Justice and its magistrates to a kidnapping and mafia organization. This is an unacceptable affront to justice, institutions and democracy.

(You may be interested in: Court cites Uribe for another process; ‘He has no competition’: defense)

Regarding his status as a kidnapped person, I let my public know that I disagreed with the use of the term, because a preventive detention, no matter how controversial, is not equivalent to a kidnapping….

It is a crime to treat justice and magistrates that way.

What about the ‘young senator from Far’?

I have answered that question I do not know how many times, I have lost count and I am not going to repeat what I have already said. But I ask you this: would it be conceivable that an interview with today’s former senator Uribe began with the question: Are you or have you been a paramilitary?

(Read also: This is the Court’s investigation of Álvaro Uribe for the El Aro massacre)

They have also done it …

It’s not usual. In my case, I have proven it, I have absolutely no objection to answering, if it is the case, before the courts, because it is not true and consequently there is not a single proof that he had belonged or belongs to an illegal organization.

It is that some of these tests were in the computers of ‘Raúl Reyes’, which were shelved because, according to the Court, they broke the chain of custody…. On numerous occasions, they call you ‘companion’ and put you in gear coordination plans …

There are said to be three references. But is this interview about my eventual membership in that organization?

No, no, but you are saying that there is nothing against you.

There is not, because if that were the case, Uribe would have filed a criminal complaint. In those computers what is supposedly said is that in my capacity as a member of the Movement of Victims of State Crimes, I organized a national mobilization to protest these crimes. And the leaders of the Farc at that time it occurred to them to say, in some message exchange between them, that it would be an extraordinary idea for them to also convene and participate. But what is not to be remembered is that I made a statement in which it was clear that I had neither requested nor wanted such support for this mobilization.

The Committee for Solidarity with Political Prisoners supported spending on hotels and the maintenance of two Monsalve family groups that had been threatened. In the case of lawyer Cadena, the relatives of Carlos Enrique Vélez have declared in Court and at the Prosecutor’s Office that the money they received from lawyer Cadena was for personal expenses. We still do not understand what is a humanitarian expense and what is a purchase of witnesses …

On that difference there is already a decision of the Court. In addition, there is an imputation of charges to Mr. Cadena, who is also deprived of liberty. The order of the Court demonstrated that there was a contribution to support some people who had at the time expressed fear for their lives before a human rights organization. Which is perfectly legal. Where did the resources come from to provide them with tickets and accommodation? From a fund that belonged to Amnesty International, which is a sufficiently recognized organization.

(Also read: Letter from Uribe’s defense requesting that the case leave the Court now)

Fund to which you have contributed?

No. And here I want to refute one of the many lies that Uribe told in that long interview that he gave you. It is not true that I have contributed a single peso to the Solidarity Committee. What is certain is that to the Movement of Victims of State Crimes, as I pointed out on my Twitter account, I have donated more than 350 million pesos, which comes from my salary. The Solidarity Committee receives these funds to account for my contributions to the Victims Movement. The resources for people that the Solidarity Committee was helping to protect at the time came from an Amnesty International fund.

He understood that his contributions did not exceed 40 million. Did you manage those grants?

I repeat, the fund is from an international organization. What I did was contact the Solidarity Committee and introduce them to the Monsalve family, and they explained their situation. One of the people who was in that program and who received this help from the Solidarity Committee was Mr. Óscar Monsalve.

The former butler of the Guacharacas ranch and father of Mr. Juan Guillermo Monsalve?

Yes. He testified against me in the process that was being carried out at that time for the criminal complaint filed by Uribe. The Supreme Court, in its investigation, intercepted the communications of Mr. Óscar Monsalve. He detected that he received frequent calls from a close friend and associate of former senator Álvaro Uribe, Juan Guillermo Villegas Uribe, who did offer money, associating those offers with the testimony that the estate’s steward would deliver to the Court. The day that Monsalve had to go to testify in court, Villegas Uribe made twenty calls to his cell phone. And then, mysteriously, the CTI reported that precisely those calls could not be recorded, due to some kind of “technical problem.”

In what capacity did Monsalve receive aid from the Committee for Solidarity with Political Prisoners, if he is not a political prisoner? He was rejected even at the JEP …

The Solidarity Committee did not give any help to Juan Guillermo Monsalve. She helped protect her family, since it is an organization that is not exclusively dedicated to dealing with the situation of political prisoners.

(We recommend: The two judicial paths in the case against Álvaro Uribe)

In the eleven times that you went to visit Monsalve in jail, what did they talk about?

It was nine times. Mr. Juan Guillermo Monsalve denounced threats on multiple occasions, and two attempts on his life. In September 2011 I received a letter from him in which he said that he wanted to give a statement about the Uribe. I took the statement and gave it to the prosecutor Vivian Morales. Months earlier, before a Justice and Peace prosecutor, Monsalve declared that he had participated in the creation of the so-called ‘Metro Block’ and that those who gave orders in that group were Messrs. Santiago and Álvaro Uribe. It is not true that as a result of my visit to that prison, Mr. Monsalve declared, he had already done so before.

That’s true. Your involvement starts later, protecting your family.

I reiterate, the protection came from the Solidarity Committee, not from me. Now, the other case is that of Pablo Hernán Sierra. He had been the first to testify before the Prosecutor’s Office, and neither he nor Monsalve were admitted to Justice and Peace because – this also draws attention – they never wanted to acknowledge that this paramilitary group existed from the Guacharacas ranch. Since their statements were not investigated, they turned to me.

You admit that you went to visit Monsalve in jail nine times and several chats were exchanged, right?

Monsalve from time to time sent me communications about his situation.

Why did Judge Reyes not want you to show those chats, claiming that you could incriminate yourself?

That is not true. The chats were handed over to the Court. I began to receive messages from Monsalve telling me that a man who called himself ‘Caliche’ was looking for him, as well as an emissary from Senator Uribe, Mr. Diego Cadena. With those elements that I delivered to the Court, the investigation began.

Has the defense had a chance to see those chats?

The defense knows those probative elements.

Do you think that, after Uribe resigned from the Senate, his natural judge should cease to be the Court and the process goes to the Prosecutor’s Office?

No, he must continue to be investigated and eventually tried by the Court.

(Also read: In secret … The call of Antioquia businessmen to Uribe)

Why?

The jurisdiction that he has is institutional. The jurisprudence of the Court indicates that in cases like this, it investigates people who have committed crimes in their capacity as congressmen, but also, and this is the important thing, who have used their condition as congressmen to commit crimes. And this thesis is what we uphold. Senator Uribe used his inauguration to eventually commit crimes, such as procedural fraud and bribery. This issue originated in debates on political control that I held in the House of Representatives in 2012 and in the Senate of the Republic in 2014, in which I pointed out the links between Uribe and paramilitary and drug trafficking groups.

In his capacity as senator, he responded and also launched accusations against me on the premises, and later went to the Supreme Court of Justice to denounce me. It was the first time I saw him eagerly leave Congress. Now I see him for the second time running away. But, in addition, he has used to look for false testimonies that he has presented, people who belong to his legislative work unit, and Congressman Álvaro Hernán Prada, which is not a minor fact.

Uribe used his investiture to eventually commit crimes such as procedural fraud and bribery. This issue originated in political control debates

But that is not an action related to the legislative mission of a senator …

Of course not, but he has used his senatorial status to get these people to act in what may be crimes. And, thirdly, on multiple occasions Senator Uribe used the parliamentary precinct to debate, in plenary sessions, matters that have to do with this case, to the point that I had to intervene to call his attention and tell him not to use his jurisdiction. as a congressman to discuss matters that must be defined in the judicial arena.

Isn’t the insistence that if it is not the Court, there cannot be ‘fair’ justice for Álvaro Uribe, isn’t it a bit suspicious?

What does not seem lawful to me is that the legal arguments are replaced with a farce in which Uribe first presents himself as a victim, and then as a furious aggressor of the Supreme Court. Former Senator Uribe has had all the guarantees, for many years …

He says no…..

That’s what he says, but I also have my position on that.

But you are not the culprit …

No, but I am the victim and I also have the right to fix a position. While he has presented numerous people who are telling lies and who are supposed to have received benefits in exchange for those statements, I have not presented a single witness before the magistrates.

Why are you so scared that the argument that the Court is no longer competent will suddenly win, and the case is passed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the ordinary justice judges?

It is not fear, no. When Uribe brought the complaint to me, I did not go out to organize a kind of riot to end the Supreme Court of Justice or to propose a Constituent Assembly, or to say that instead of the Court, a “court of honor” had to be created. Nothing of that. I accepted my natural judge, appealed to arguments and presented evidence.

I heard his lawyer on La W, who in a very slow tone explained that you do not want the Uribe case to reach the Prosecutor’s Office, because the Prosecutor is a close friend of the President. Uribe says that he does not like the Court because he feels that there are magistrates who are his political enemies. Why should we believe the first and not the second?

What Uribe has said is that the Court is a kidnapping and mafia organization. When the time comes we will see what the scenario is, once the Court makes its decisions.

Uribe was illegally recorded for 32 days. Do you accept that this happened?

Those recordings have been declared legal by the Court.

How can they be legal when a person was ordered to be recorded and it ended up being another, Uribe?
They are legal, and revealed findings relevant to the Court.

Do you accept that Uribe asks that his entire file be publicly known and the evidence made public?

Uribe knows that the law prevents it. It tries to give the image of being transparent, but, on the contrary, what it wants is to hide what has happened. The question is why if he wants everything to be known, he seeks to invalidate his cell phone conversations at all costs.

MARÍA ISABEL RUEDA
Special for THE TIME

– .

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.