By Carol Salazar, INFOBAE, August 3, 2025
(Translated by Eunice Gibson, CSN Volunteer Translator)
Representative Jim McGovern insisted that the United States Secretary of State made a mistake when he supported “impunity”.
The reasoning in the decision that was issued on former President Álvaro Uribe, finding him guilty of bribery in a criminal proceeding and procedural fraud has generated a variety of pronouncements at the national and international level. Members of Congress and politicians in the United States stood out in the political panorama by their multiple pronouncements criticizing Judge Sandra Liliana Heredia, who made the decision.
A highlight among the comments that appeared on social networks was the one by United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who expressed his doubts about the competence and transparency of Colombia’s legal system. From his perspective, the trial court decision in the criminal case against the former Head of State was the result of what he considered to be “instrumentalization”.
“Former Colombian President Uribe’s only crime has been to fight tirelessly and defend his country. The instrumentalization of Colombian judicial power by radical judges has set a worrisome precedent,” he wrote.
However, his posture bothered United States Representative Jim McGovern, who called it “shameful”. He sees it as constituting support for impunity. Because, when you consider that the Colombian legal system has just now found him guilty of crimes committed in 2018, and the crimes were based on events demonstrating that he was behind the manipulation of witnesses he expected would benefit him.
“The Trump administration is saying that foreign leaders don’t have to be subject to the Rule of Law as long as they say nice things about Trump. (@SecRubio). It’s a serious error to support the impunity of a strongman who is called to account before the tribunals of his own country. That declaration is shameful, and you know it,” he said.
(Tweets omitted)
Petro asked that the United States not “interfere” in Colombia’s legal system
President Gustavo Petro had stated previously that the national government would support the decision that the Judge would make in the case against the former President, independently of whether the decision would be “Guilty” or “Not guilty”. Nevertheless, he showed that his position was not the same as that adopted by some politicians in the United States; his statement was to request that they abstain from interfering with Colombia’s legal system.
His comment came about as a specific response to the United States Embassy in Colombia which had shared statements made by Marco Rubio in which he questioned the legal system in this country.
“I ask that the Embassy of the United States in Colombia not interfere in my country’s legal system. Dozens of judges, justices, and prosecutors have been murdered in their battle against drug trafficking, and because of the relations between the drug traffickers and the Colombian government. Many brave Colombians have been killed in helping the United States, but now the government of the United States comes and disrespects them,” he said.
At the same time, he asked that the United States legal system join the voices that are supporting the legal system in Colombia which, in our judgment, is being “attacked” by the government of the United States.
(Tweets omitted)
Members of Colombia’s Congress were also irritated by the comments made by the United States Secretary of State. A Representative from the Chamber, Jennifer Pedrazza, rejected the statement published by the North American official, characterizing it as meddling that should not be tolerated, considering that the country’s justice system had acted independently and autonomously.
“The interference of a North American government official in the autonomous decisions of Colombia’s legal system is unacceptable. I remind you, Marco Rubio, that Colombia is a sovereign nation, not the United States’ back porch,” she stressed.
(Tweets omitted)
Colombia’s Embassy in the United States did the same thing, pointing out that the criminal case proceeding against the former President originated in a case that was handled by the Supreme Court of Justice in 2012, and that in 2020, it had been adopted by the ordinary justice system.
Ever since then, the Attorney General’s Office had been investigating the events, and in 2023, prosecutors filed formal charges against the former Head of State. The trial began in 2024 and concluded with the decision recently issued. The defense of the defendant lies in his right to appeal.
“The judicial power operates with complete autonomy and independence, principles that are consecrated in our constitutional framework and defended actively by the current administration of President Gustavo Petro,” reads her communication.
(Embassy statement omitted)