He could have refused to participate. He did not.
Santiago Uribe was found guilty of aggravated conspiracy and murder for directing a criminal organization allegedly engaged in 'social cleansing' with state agent involvement. The group operated in Yarumal, Antioquia since the 1990s, with evidence including testimony from a police lieutenant and recordings of payments allegedly made by Uribe for crimes.
- Santiago Uribe sentenced to 28 years for leading Los 12 Apóstoles criminal group
- Investigation began in 1995; Supreme Court ruling issued June 4, 2026
- Police lieutenant Juan Carlos Meneses testified from Argentina with recordings of alleged payments
- Camilo Barrientos, a bus driver, was murdered after being falsely accused of guerrilla collaboration
Colombia's Supreme Court confirmed a 28-year sentence against Santiago Uribe, former president Álvaro Uribe's brother, for leading the criminal group 'Los 12 Apóstoles' and orchestrating extrajudicial killings in Antioquia.
Santiago Uribe, the brother of former Colombian president Álvaro Uribe, will spend 28 years in prison. On June 4, 2026, the Supreme Court's criminal chamber issued its final ruling, closing a three-decade investigation and confirming what a lower court had already decided: that Uribe led a criminal organization called Los 12 Apóstoles and orchestrated murders under the guise of social cleansing.
The path to this conviction was neither straight nor swift. When the case first reached court, Uribe was acquitted. But an appeals court reversed that decision, finding him guilty of aggravated conspiracy and aggravated homicide. The Supreme Court, reviewing the case for constitutional safeguards, upheld the conviction. The justices found Uribe acted with full knowledge and intent, deliberately harming the right to life and public safety. He could have refused to participate. He did not.
The criminal group itself took root in Yarumal, a municipality in Antioquia province, during the 1990s. The investigation began in 1995 when Albeiro Martínez reported murders he attributed to the organization. Early inquiries by Colombia's criminal investigation unit confirmed not just the group's existence but its growth under the command of Pedro Manuel Benavides and Juan Carlos Meneses, a police lieutenant. Meneses would become central to the case—a state actor embedded within the criminal apparatus.
Camilo Barrientos was a bus driver. He ran a route between two towns, Campamento and Yarumal, ferrying passengers along a familiar road. The criminal group marked him as a target, spreading word that he collaborated with guerrillas. There is no evidence he did. Uribe received the information about Barrientos's supposed subversive activities and his route. He shared it with other members of the band. Working with someone called Rodrigo, Uribe helped identify who would locate the victim and carry out the killing. Two sicarios shot Barrientos dead.
Meneses, the police lieutenant, testified twice in 2010, speaking from Argentina. He provided a recording from 2009 in which Uribe allegedly discussed payments for the crimes. Meneses also described the group's infrastructure: a room adjacent to the police station itself, a place where members could slip in and out without drawing attention on the street. The state and the criminal underworld were not merely adjacent. They were intertwined.
The court's language was precise. Uribe, in his role as leader, gathered intelligence and selected targets alongside others in the organization. The judges emphasized that his actions were intentional—not reckless, not negligent, but deliberate. He possessed knowledge. He possessed will. He acted anyway. The law provided him an out; the Penal Code lists circumstances that can absolve responsibility. None applied. He was culpable. He acted against the law when he could have refrained.
The 28-year sentence closes a case that began in 1995. It is a rare moment in Colombian justice: a final conviction, upheld at the highest level, of a member of the country's political elite for leading organized crime. What it means for the broader question of state collusion in extrajudicial violence—whether this conviction will open doors to others, whether it signals a shift in how courts treat the entanglement of officials and criminal networks—remains to be seen.
Citações Notáveis
Santiago Uribe, in his role as leader, gathered intelligence and selected targets alongside others in the organization, acting with full knowledge and intent.— Supreme Court criminal chamber ruling
The group maintained a room adjacent to the police station itself, allowing members to slip in and out without drawing attention.— Police lieutenant Juan Carlos Meneses, testimony
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did it take three decades to reach a final conviction?
The case moved through the system twice. Uribe was acquitted at first, then convicted on appeal. The Supreme Court had to review it again to ensure constitutional protections were met. Each step takes time, and the evidence—testimony from a police officer in exile, recordings, witness accounts—had to be gathered and tested across multiple trials.
What makes this case significant beyond Uribe himself?
It involves a state actor—a police lieutenant—working inside a criminal organization. That's not just crime; it's the corruption of the institution meant to prevent it. The court had to prove not just that murders happened, but that Uribe directed them, that he knew what he was doing, and that he did it anyway.
Camilo Barrientos was killed because someone accused him of helping guerrillas. Was that accusation ever substantiated?
No. The court's record doesn't show any evidence he actually collaborated with anyone. He was a bus driver on a routine route. The accusation itself became his death sentence.
How does a police lieutenant end up testifying against his own organization?
He was in Argentina when he gave his testimony in 2010. He had distance, perhaps safety. He provided a recording and described how the group operated—the room next to the station, the way members moved in and out. That kind of insider knowledge is rare and damaging.
Does this conviction change anything about how Colombia prosecutes organized crime?
It sets a precedent. A final conviction of someone from the political class, upheld at the Supreme Court level, for leading a criminal organization with state involvement—that's not routine. Whether it opens doors to other cases or remains an exception depends on what prosecutors do next.