He gathered the intelligence, defined who should die, and arranged for it to happen.
En las laderas del norte de Antioquia, donde la violencia de los años noventa dejó cicatrices que el tiempo no ha borrado, la justicia colombiana pronunció una condena que tardó décadas en llegar. El Tribunal de Antioquia halló a Santiago Uribe, hermano del expresidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez, culpable de homicidio y concierto para delinquir por haber dirigido el grupo armado ilegal Los 12 Apóstoles, responsable de una campaña sistemática de exterminio contra civiles señalados como simpatizantes guerrilleros. La sentencia de 28 años no solo cierra un capítulo de impunidad para las víctimas de pueblos como Yarumal y Campamento, sino que recuerda que el poder y el apellido no son escudos eternos frente a la memoria de los muertos.
- Un tribunal de apelaciones revocó una absolución previa y condenó a Santiago Uribe a 28 años de prisión, sacudiendo el statu quo de la justicia colombiana frente a figuras de alto perfil.
- El caso expone una alianza criminal entre un terrateniente poderoso y agentes del Estado, lo que convierte las matanzas en algo más que paramilitarismo: en complicidad institucional.
- El punto de quiebre judicial fue el rechazo al método del juez de primera instancia, quien evaluó los testimonios de forma aislada para descartarlos, ignorando su convergencia y la existencia de una lista de objetivos que varios testigos mencionaron años antes de que el testigo clave declarara.
- La condena establece un precedente para que los tribunales de apelación corrijan absoluciones basadas en una valoración probatoria fragmentaria e irrazonable.
- Para las familias de las víctimas civiles —entre ellas la del conductor de bus Camilo Barrientos Durán, ejecutado en su ruta habitual— el fallo representa un reconocimiento tardío pero concreto de lo que vivieron.
El 25 de noviembre, el Tribunal de Antioquia condenó a Santiago Uribe Vélez, hermano del expresidente Álvaro Uribe, a 28 años de prisión por homicidio y concierto para delinquir. La sala de apelaciones revocó una absolución anterior y lo encontró responsable de haber liderado Los 12 Apóstoles, un grupo armado ilegal que en la primera mitad de los años noventa ejecutó sistemáticamente a personas señaladas como simpatizantes de la guerrilla en municipios del norte de Antioquia como Yarumal, Campamento y Valdivia.
Desde su hacienda La Carolina, Uribe dirigía la estructura criminal a través de dos lugartenientes: Hernán Darío Zapata, alias Pelo de Chonta, a cargo de las operaciones urbanas, y un individuo conocido solo como Rodrigo, responsable de las rurales. El tribunal estableció además que agentes de la Policía participaron activamente en el grupo, lo que convirtió la operación en algo más que una banda paramilitar: una empresa criminal con complicidad estatal.
El homicidio que ancló la condena fue el del conductor de bus Camilo Barrientos Durán, asesinado a tiros mientras recorría su ruta entre Campamento y Yarumal. Según el testimonio de Juan Carlos Meneses, quien participó en la planeación del crimen, Uribe recopiló información sobre Barrientos, recibió reportes sobre sus supuestas actividades subversivas y coordinó personalmente la ejecución con sus lugartenientes.
La clave del fallo de apelación estuvo en la valoración de los testimonios. El juez de primera instancia había descartado uno a uno los relatos de cuatro testigos sin considerar su convergencia. El tribunal superior calificó ese método de deliberadamente fragmentario e irrazonable: varios de esos testigos habían mencionado la existencia de una lista de objetivos mantenida por Uribe años antes de que Meneses declarara en 2010, lo que constituía una corroboración independiente que el juez original ignoró.
La sentencia impone la pena máxima dentro del rango aplicable, dada la sistematicidad de los crímenes, la participación de agentes estatales y el perfil de las víctimas —civiles perseguidos por sus presuntas simpatías políticas—. El fallo marca un momento significativo en la rendición de cuentas por la violencia paramilitar en Colombia y sienta precedente sobre la responsabilidad de figuras poderosas en ese capítulo oscuro de la historia del país.
Santiago Uribe, the brother of former Colombian president Álvaro Uribe Vélez, was convicted on November 25 to 28 years in prison for homicide and criminal conspiracy. The Antioquia Court's appellate panel reversed a lower court acquittal, finding him guilty of orchestrating systematic killings through an illegal armed group called Los 12 Apóstoles during the early 1990s in northern Antioquia.
The court determined that Uribe operated from his hacienda, La Carolina, directing what amounted to an extermination campaign against people labeled as undesirable or suspected guerrilla sympathizers. The killings concentrated in towns like Yarumal, Campamento, and Valdivia. Uribe maintained two lieutenants to carry out the violence: Hernán Darío Zapata, known as Pelo de Chonta, who handled urban operations, and a figure identified only as Rodrigo, who managed rural killings. Critically, the court found that state police agents actively participated in this criminal structure, making it not merely a paramilitary operation but one with direct government complicity.
The specific homicide anchoring the conviction was that of Camilo Barrientos Durán, a bus driver who ran routes between Campamento and Yarumal. Sicarios shot him dead while he traveled his regular route. Barrientos had been marked for death by the group because they claimed he aided guerrillas. According to testimony from Juan Carlos Meneses, who participated in planning the murder, Uribe himself gathered intelligence about Barrientos, received reports of his supposed subversive activities, and coordinated the killing with his lieutenants, including deciding which member would locate and execute the target.
The appellate court's reversal hinged on witness testimony that the original judge had systematically dismissed. Four witnesses provided accounts that corroborated each other in striking detail, yet the first-instance judge had evaluated them in isolation, rejecting each one separately without acknowledging their convergence. The appellate panel found this approach deliberately fragmentary and unreasonable. The court emphasized that multiple witnesses had mentioned the existence of a kill list—a document Uribe maintained with names of intended victims—years before Meneses testified in 2010. These earlier accounts aligned with Meneses's later statement, providing independent corroboration the original judge had overlooked or ignored.
The tribunal concluded that Uribe acted with full knowledge and intent. He knew the consequences of his orders and chose to proceed anyway, deliberately harming the right to life and public safety without legal justification. The court found no grounds for diminished responsibility under Colombian criminal law. Given the systematic nature of the conspiracy, the involvement of state agents in the killings, and the targeting of civilians based on alleged political sympathies, the judges imposed the maximum sentence within the applicable range: 28 years.
The conviction represents a significant moment in Colombian accountability for paramilitary violence. It establishes that appellate courts can overturn acquittals when lower courts have mishandled evidence, and it holds a high-profile figure—the brother of a former president—responsible for extrajudicial killings carried out with state participation. The case now moves toward potential further appeal, but the appellate judgment stands as the court's final word on what happened in northern Antioquia in those early years of the decade.
Citas Notables
Santiago Uribe Vélez, in his capacity as leader of that criminal group, was responsible, along with others, for gathering information and defining potential victims.— Antioquia Court appellate panel
The judge deliberately and consistently limited himself to a fragmented account of each of those four testimonies, failing to acknowledge their striking convergence.— Antioquia Court appellate panel
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the first judge acquit him if the evidence was there?
The judge didn't reject the evidence outright—he just evaluated each witness in isolation, never stepping back to see how their accounts reinforced each other. When you look at testimony one piece at a time, gaps appear. When you look at it together, a pattern emerges. The first judge chose the former approach.
And the appellate court saw it differently?
They said the judge's method was deliberately fragmentary. They looked at the same four witnesses and saw consistent details about the kill list, about how Uribe selected victims, about his direct involvement. The witnesses didn't know each other's stories, yet they matched.
What made Camilo Barrientos a target?
He drove a bus route through territory the group controlled. Someone reported him as helping guerrillas—that was enough. The group kept a list of such people. Uribe received the intelligence, confirmed the target, and coordinated the execution.
Did Uribe pull the trigger himself?
No. He ordered it. He gathered the information, defined who should die, and arranged for it to happen. The court treated that as equivalent to the killing itself—conspiracy and homicide together.
How does state police involvement change the case?
It transforms it from a paramilitary crime into something worse: a state-sponsored extermination. The judges emphasized this when they imposed the maximum sentence. It wasn't just criminals acting alone.
What happens now?
He can appeal further, but this appellate judgment is substantial. It's the kind of reversal that's hard to overturn again. And it sets a precedent: high-profile figures can be held accountable for these killings, even decades later.